ENGLISH 
USAGE 


HALL 


qr:  \ 


10^  AHQKl^^ 
STATE  NORMAL  SCHOOL 


ENGLISH  USAGE 


STUDIES   IN   THE    HISTORY   AND   USES 
OF  ENGLISH  AVORDS  AND  PHRASES 


J.  LESSLIE  HALL,  Ph.D.,  Litt.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    THE    EN-GI.ISH    LANGUAGE    AND    LITERATURE    IN   THE    COLLEGE    OF 

WILLIAM  AND  MARY;   TRANSLATOR  OF  BEOWULF,  AND  OF  JUDITH.  PHOENIX. 

AND    OTHER    ANGLO-SAXON    POEMS;     AUTHOR   OF    "OLD    ENGLISH 

IDYLS,"   "half-hours  IN  SOUTHERN   HISTORY,"   ETC. 


SCOTT,   FORESMAN  AND   COMPANY 
CHICAGO  NEW  YORK 


Copyright  1917  by 
Scott,  Foresman  and  Company 


To 
PROFESSOR  BASIL  L.  GILDERSLEEVE 

THE  DEAX  OF  AMEKICAX  SCHOLAKS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/englishusagestudOOhall 


PREFACE 

It  is  often  said  that  a  preface  is  unnecessary.  I  feel,  how- 
ever, that  I  should  write  one  to  set  forth  the  object  and  the 
scope  of  this  volume. 

I  have  long  felt  that  not  only  purists  but  a  far  better  class 
of  men  were  putting  us,  teachers  and  pupils  and  general  pub- 
lic, in  strait-jackets.  Distinguished  grammarians  and  emi- 
nent rhetorical  scholars  condemn  in  their  books  many  words 
and  phrases  that  we  see  all  through  the  literature.  They  seem 
at  times  to  combine  to  expel  from  the  language  some  locution 
that  we  have  heard  frequently  from  attractive  speakers  and 
liave  seen  often  in  the  works  of  eminent  writers. 

The  idea  has  frequently  occurred  to  me  while  teaching  usage 
with  certain  popular  textbooks  in  hand  that  I  was  criticizing 
and  correcting  sentences  that  might  have  been  taken  from  the 
most  distinguished  authors.  Words  mercilessly  condemned 
by  these  textbooks  would  fall  from  the  lips  of  some  distin- 
guished speaker  that  addressed  the  students  the  very  day  on 
which  these  words  had  been  treated  as  barbarisms  in  the 
English  lecture  room.  But  I  had  no  definite  statements  with 
which  to  controvert  the  textbook :  I  might  tlieorize  but  had  no 
facts  to  offer. 

After  Professor  Lounsbury  published  his  ^Standard  of 
Usage  in  English,  I  determined  to  search  the  literature  and  see 
how  far  some  of  the  disputed  words  and  phrases  are  recog- 
nized by  reputable  authors.  I  have  studied  about  a  hundred 
and  twenty-five  locutions  condemned  more  or  less  vehemently 
by  purists,  pedants,  verbalists,  grammarians,  and  professors 
of  rhetoric.  I  have  traced  these  locutions  through  more  than 
seventy-five  thousand  pages  of  English  and  American  litera- 

5 


6  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

ture,  most  of  my  reading  being  in  pure  literature,  but  some  of 
it  in  the  works  of  scholars  and  linguists  whose  usage  I  thought 
worth  recording  and  citing.  Some  of  my  authors  are  among 
the  "lesser  lights"  of  literature;  men  who,  though  not  very 
eminent,  may  be  regarded  as  having  a  genius  for  idiom.  I 
have  held  back  statistics  collected  from  the  books  of  men  who, 
though  known  to  some  of  us  as  authors  of  valuable  treatises, 
might  not  be  known  to  the  majority  of  my  readers.  For 
instance,  I  have  rarely  used  statistics  from  the  books  of  a 
certain  well-known  writer  because  I  do  not  regard  him  as 
anything  of  a  stylist,  though  I  find  him  quoted  pretty  fre- 
quently by  a  foreign  scliolar  who  is  studying  the  English  lan- 
guage critically. 

I  have  tried  to  write,  not  as  a  partisan,  but  as  a  historian 
of  usage.  I  give  the  authorities  jjro  and  con,  record  the  usage, 
and  leave  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  conclusions.  I  have  not 
looked  for  certain  words  and  phrases,  but  simply  noted  them 
in  my  reading.  I  have  no  pet  words  to  defend,  no  detested 
words  to  vilify,  I  am  not  recommending  this  or  that  locu- 
tion, but  simply  showing  how  often  it  is  found  in  seventy-five 
thousand  or  more  pages  of  good  English. 

I  wisli  to  acknowledge  my  obligation  to  the  late  Professor 
T.  R.  Lounsbury  and  to  Professor  John  R.  Slater  for  valuable 
suggestions,  most  of  which  I  have  willingly  adopted. 

Williamsburg,  Virginia, 
March  15,  1917. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface    5 

SECTION 

I.      Introduction    11 

II.     Accept  of   27 

III.  Adjectives  Not  Compared 28 

IV.  Adverbs  Used  as  Adjectives 30 

V.     After  for  Afterwards 38 

VI.     Athletics— Singvlar  or   Plural .' 39 

VII.     At  Length  =  At  Last 40 

VIII.     Beat  for  Defeat 42 

IX.     Between  Each  (or  Every) 43 

X.     But  -\-  Nominative     44 

XI.     Calculated  +  the  Infinitive    47 

XII.      Can  as  an  Independent  Verb 49 

XIII.  Catch  a  Post,  Train,  Boat,  etc 50 

XIV.  Catched  for  Caught 51 

XV.     Collect  a  Bill 52 

XVI.     Commence  +  the   Infinitive 52 

XVII.     Concord  of  Verb  and  Subject. 53 

XVIII.     Consider  for  Regard 58 

XIX.     Conspire-^  Concur,  Agree  60 

XX.     Constant  (ly)  =  Continual  {I  y)     61 

XXI.     Cotemporary  =  Contemporary     63 

XXII.     A  Couple  of  for  Two 64 

XXIII.     Cultured  as  Adjective 66 

XXIV.     Dead  Corpse   67 

XXV.     Demean  =^  Debase,   Degrade    Oneself 68 

XXVI.     Description  =  Kind,  Sort    69 

XXVII.     Difficultly    70 

XXVIII.      Directly  as  a  Conjunction 71 

XXIX.      Donate     73 

XXX.     Double  Comparatives  and  Superlatives 74 

XXXI.      The  Double  Negative 75 

XXXII.     Dove  for  Dived 78 

7 


CONTENTS 


SECTION  PAGE 

XXXIII.  Drunk  as  a  Partic-iple 79 

XXXIV.  Eat  for  Ate SO 

XXXV.     Eat  for  Eaten 81 

XXXVI.      Editorial  as  a  Noun 82 

XXXVII.      Either  =  Eaeh   of    Tico 84 

XXXVIII.      Either  Eeferring  to  More  than  Two 85 

XXXIX.      Forms  in  Else  and  Else 's 86 

XL.     Encounter    89 

XLI.     Ever  So  and  Never  So 90 

XLII.     Every  as  a  Pronoun 94 

XLIII.     Evidence  as  a  Verh 95 

XLIV.     Execute  =  Put  to  Death 96 

XLV.     Experience  as  a  Verb 98 

XL VI.     Female  as  a  Noun 99 

XLVII.     First  Tivo  or  Two  First.' 104 

XLVIII.     Firstly    107 

XLIX.     Foreign  Plurals  Anglicized 109 

L.     Gotten    109 

LI.      Graduate  as  an  Active  Vim-I) 113 

LII.     Grateful  =  Pleasant    114 

LIII.      Groic  Small 115 

LIV.     Had  liather    116 

LV.     Have  Got  for  Have 121 

LVI.     Ecighth   (Highth)    for  Height 124 

LVII.      7  Am  Mistaken,  etc 125 

LVIII.     /  Presume  =  I  Dare  Say,  Believe,  etc 127 

LIX.     /  Take  It  =  I  Understand,  Suppose,  etc 128 

LX.     Immense  and  Immensely 129 

LXI.     Implicit  Confidence  130 

LXII.     In  Our  (Their,  Your)  Midst 132 

LXIII.     Individual  for  Man,  etc 134 

LXIV.      7;i<7-Forms  With  and  Witliont    's 136 

LXV.     Jeopardise 143 

LXVI.     Journal    144 

LXVII.     Kine  for  Coirs 145 

LXVIII       Lengthy     146 

LXIX.     Lesser    148 

LXX.     Loan  as  a  Verb ^•'>0 

LXXI.     Mathematics— Singxilar  or  Plural? 152 

LXXII.     Me  as  a  Quasi-Nominative 153 

LXXIII.     Mechanics    157 


CONTEXTS 


SECTION 

LXXIV. 

LXXV. 

LXXVI. 

LXXVII. 

LXXVIII. 

LXXIX. 

LXXX. 

LXXXI. 

LXXXII. 

LXXXIII. 

LXXXIV. 

LXXXV. 

LXXXVI. 

LXXXYII. 

LXXXVIII. 

LXXXIX. 

XC. 

XCI. 

XCII. 

XCIII. 
XCIV. 

xcv. 

XCVI. 

XCVII. 

XCVIII. 

XCIX. 

c. 

CI. 
CII. 

cm. 

CIV. 

cv. 

CVI. 

evil. 

CVIII. 
CIX. 

ex. 

CXI. 

CXII. 

CXIII. 


PAGE 

Memorandums    157 

Metaphysics  —  Singular   or   Plural .' 159 

Mighty  as  an  Adverb 159 

The  Misplaced  Relative  Clause 162 

The  Misrelated  Participle   (or  Gerund  f 165 

Mutual  Friend   172 

Myself  for  I  or  Me,  etc 175 

None  —  Singular    or    Plural  ? 177 

Not  Only  —  But    (Also) 181 

Noiv  as  a  Conjunction 183 

Of  a  Morn  infj,  etc 185 

Only 187 

Onto    193 

FartiuUy  for  Partly 19-1 

Plenty  as  Predicate  Adjective 196 

The   Pleonastic  Pronoun 198 

Politics — Singular  or  Plural  ? • 199 

The  Possessive  Case  of  Inanimate  Objects 202 

The  Possessive  Case  as  Antecedent  to  a  Relative  Pro- 
noun       208 

Pound  as  a  Plural 212 

The  Preposition  at  the  End  of  a  Sentence 213 

Pretty  as  an  Adverl) 217 

The  Progressive  Passive  Verb  Phrase 219 

Proven  as  a  Participle 227 

Quit  =  Leave,  Go  Au-ay  from 229 

EecTcon  and  Guess  in  Literature 231 

Redundant  That 235 

The  Relative  That  Before  a  Pans;- 236 

Reliable 239 

Eemem her  of   242 

Hesurrect   243 

The  Retained  Object 244 

Eigltt  as  an  Adverb 249 

Save  and  Saving  +  The  Nominative  Case 251 

Scour  =  Search,  Mange  over 253 

Settle  an  Account 255 

SicTc    and   Sickness 255 

The  Singular  Adjective  as  a  Substantive 262 

Sit  or  Set 264 

The   Split  Infinitive 266 


10 


CONTENTS 


SECTION  PAGE 

CXIV.      Splitting  Particles    272 

CXV.     Such  as  an  Adverb 275 

CXVI.     Such  a  One  and  Such  an  One 276 

CXVII.     The  Superlative  Used  of  Two 279 

CXVIII.     Superlatives  Irregularly  Formed 281 

CXIX.     Suspect  =  Suppose,   Imagine    283 

CXX.     Sympathy  With    {For,  In) 284 

CXXI.     Talented    286 

CXXII.     Tense  of  the  Infinitive 288 

CXXIII.      Than  as  a  Quasi-Prcpooition 291 

CXXIV.      That  as  an  Adverl) 296 

CXXV.      That  as  a  Coordinating  Relative 297 

CXXVI.      Thee  as  a  Quasi-Nominative 303 

CXXVII.      Thinic  for   305 

CXXVIII.      Thousand  for  A  or  the  Thousatul 305 

CXXIX.     Thrived  or   Throve? 306 

CXXX.     Throughly   . ! 308 

CXXXI.     Tomorrow  Is  Sunday 308 

CXXXII.      Try  And  or  Try  To? 309 

CXXXIII.      Voice  as  a  Verb 310 

CXXXIV.      Was  for  Subjunctive  Were 311 

CXXXV.      What  Used  of  Persons 314 

CXXXVI.      Whether  as  Interrogative  Particle 315 

CXXXVII.      Who  for  Whom 317 

CXXXVTII.      Whose  Referring  to  Neuter  Antecedents 320 

CXXXIX.     Words  of  Relationship 328 

CXL.     Yesternight   329 

CXLI.     You  Was  '.  .  .   331 


INTRODUCTION 

What  is  the  standard  of  usage  ?  What  is  good  Greek  ?  good 
Latin?  good  French?  good  English?  For  long  centuries  such 
questions  as  these  have  engaged  some  of  the  most  acute  intel- 
lects of  the  world  and  have  been  discussed — too  often  with 
great  bitterness  and  venom. 

Horace  said,  nsus  ct  jus  ct  norma  loquendi.^  One  of  his 
translators  renders  this,  "Fashion  .  .  .  sole  umpire,  arbi- 
tress,  and  guide  of  speech."  Instead  of  "  fashion,"  which  is 
rather  ambiguous  in  modern  English,  let  us  rather  say 
' '  usage. ' '  Usage,  then,  is  the  law  and  rule  of  speech.  Horace 
says  further: 

Full  many  a  word  now  lost — again  shall  rise, 
And  many  a  word  shall  droop  which  now  we  prize. 

That  is,  words  shall  drop  out  of  the  language  and  revive  again, 
and  no  two  successive  generations  will  use  exactly  the  same 
vocabulary.  This  is  as  true  today  as  in  the  era  of  Roman 
greatness.  Now,  whose  usage  is  the  norm  of  speech  ?  Horace 
does  not  answer  this  question,  but  we  cannot  imagine  for  an 
instant  that  he  took  account  of  the  great  mass  of  ignorant  or 
of  half-educated  Romans.  He  must  have  meant  the  usage  of 
the  intelligent,  refined,  cultivated  classes ;  not  of  the  ' '  man  in 
the  street." 

About  a  hundred  years  later  the  great  Roman  rhetorician 
Quintilian  wrote  his  Institutes  of  Oratory,  which  we  see  quoted 
in  our  encyclopedias  of  the  world's  classics.  In  advising  those 
who  cultivate  eloquence  as  to  Avhat  kind  of  words  to  use,  he 
says  that  the  words  which  they  use  should  have  consensum 

11 


12  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

cruditorum,  the  consensus,  agreement,  of  the  cultivated  (the 
learned,  as  some  render  it). 

Vida,  the  great  Italian  critic,  in  his  Art  of  Poctrij,  says: 

If  0  'er  the  rest  some  mighty  genius  shines, 
Mark  the  sweet  charni  and  vigor  of  his  Hues; 
As  far  as  Phoebus  and  the  heavenly  powers 
Smile  on  your  labors,  make  his  diction  yours, 
Your  style  by  his  authentic  standard  frame. 

The  unknown  author  of  the  famous  Art  of  Poesie,  pub- 
lished in  1589,  says  that  "use  and  custome"  are  the  "onely 
umpiers  of  speech."  Not  the  "use  and  custome"  of  the  unlet- 
tered mass ;  for  he  says  in  another  passage  that  the  best  Eng- 
lish was  to  be  sought  "in  the  Kings  Court  or  in  the  good 
townes  and  cities  within  the  land  .  .  .  the  usuall  speach  of 
the  Court,  and  that  of  London  and  the  shires  lying  about  Lon- 
don within  LX  miles,  and  not  much  above."  This  would 
indicate  that  the  territory  including  London  and  the  two  uni- 
versities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  set  the  standard  of  speech 
for  the  whole  English  nation,  no  doubt  because  there  were 
more  educated  and  cultivated  people  in  that  part  of  England 
than  in  all  the  rest  put  together. 

Ben  Jonson,  the  poet,  himself  a  scholar  and  a  grammarian, 
said,  "Custom  is  the  most  certain  mistress  of  language,  as  the 
public  stamp  makes  the  current-money.  .  .  .  When  I  name 
custom,  I  understand  not  the  vulgar  custom  .  .  .  but  that  I 
call  custom  of  speech,  which  is  the  consent  of  the  learned." 
He  is  evidently  quoting  Quintilian,  with  whose  Institutes  of 
Oratory  such  a  classical  scholar  was  in  that  day  necessarily 
familiar. 

Three  years  after  Jonson 's  death,  Peacham,  another  critical 
scholar,  writing  on  the  subject  of  usage,  refers  to  "those 
authors  in  prose  who  speake  the  best  and  purest  English. ' '  He 
recommends  to  his  readers  seven  more  or  less  recent  authors, 
five  of  whom  are  quoted  today  in  the  anthologies  used  in  col- 
lege classes  and  in  our  encyclopedias  of  choice  literature. 


INTEOBUCTION  13 

In  1776,  George  Campbell  published  his  Fhilosophij  of 
Rhetoric.  This  used  to  be  a  standai'd  textbook  in  colleges  and 
a  book  of  reference  for  men  of  literary  taste,  and  is  still  quoted 
in  some  of  the  best  college  rhetorics.  Campbell  says,  "Lan- 
guage is  purely  a  species  of  fashion.  .  .  .  Every  tongue 
whatever  is  founded  on  use  and  custom, 

Whose  arbitrary  sway 
Words  and  the  forms  of  language  must  obey." 

These  fashions,  he  says,  may  owe  their  existence  to  imitation, 
to  reflection,  to  affectation,  or  to  caprice.  "Use,  or  the  custom 
of  speaking,  is  the  sole  original  standard  of  conversation  as  far 
as  regards  the  expression,  and  the  custom  of  writing  is  the  sole 
standard  of  style.  .  .  .  From  the  practice  of  those  who  have 
had  a  liberal  education,  and  are  therefore  to  be  presumed  to  be 
best  acquainted  with  men  and  things,  we  judge  of  the  general 
use  in  language.  .  .  .  We  must  understand  to  be  compre- 
hended under  general  use  whatever  modes  of  speech  are  au- 
thorized by  the  writings  of  a  great  number,  if  not  the  majority, 
of  celebrated  authors.  .  .  .  The  only  certain,  steady  stand- 
ard accessible  to  all  consists  in  authors  of  reputation."  He 
says  that  we  cannot  justify  a  locution  because  it  is  found  in 
ancient  authors :  "No  word  not  known  to  persons  now  living 
should  be  used.  .  .  .  The  present  use  must  be  the  standard  of 
the  present  language.  .  .  .  Old  words  are  proper  if  not  obso- 
lete, and  a  new  word  is  not  better  because  it  is  new.  .  .  .  The 
standard  is  a  plurality  of  celebrated  authors.  .  .  .  Usage  is  the 
sole  mistress  of  language;  grammar  and  criticism,  her  min- 
isters. .  .  .  Where  usage  is  pretty  evenly  divided  between  two 
different  though  resembling  modes  of  expression,  either  is 
proper.  If  the  authorities  preponderate  on  one  side,  it  is  in 
vain  to  oppose  the  prevailing  usage.  .  .  .  Authority  is  every- 
thing in  language." 

Campbell   did  not   take   his   examples   from   many  living 
authors  because  their  fame  was  not  firmly  enough  established, 


14  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

nor  did  he  go  farther  back  than  about  a  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  years  except  in  the  case  of  the  King  James  Bible,  which, 
he  said,  was  in  universal  and  continuous  use  as  a  standard  of 
English. 

Lord  Chesterfield  was  a  contemporary  of  Campbell's.  His 
letters  are  often  quoted  in  the  encyclopedias  of  standard 
English.  Speaking  of  faults  in  language  he  says,  "He  is 
unpardonable  that  has  any  at  all,  because  it  is  his  own  fault ; 
he  need  only  attend  to,  observe,  and  imitate  the  best  authors. ' ' 

Dr.  Hugh  Blair,  the  famous  lecturer  on  rhetoric  in  the 
University  of  Edinburgh,  who  died  in  1800,  says,  "There  is 
no  standard,  either  of  purity  or  of  propriety,  but  the  practice 
of  the  best  writers  and  speakers  in  the  country." 

Thomas  Jefferson,  a  man  of  remarkably  scholarly  tastes  and, 
his  whole  life  long,  profoundly  interested  in  education,  writ- 
ing to  John  Waldo,  a  grammarian  of  his  day,  said,  "I  have 
'^  been  pleased  to  see  that  in  all  cases  you  appeal  to  usage  as 
the  arbiter  of  language ;  and  justly  consider  that  as  giving 
law  to  grammar,  and  not  grammar  to  usage.  I  concur  entirely 
with  you  in  opposition  to  Purists,  who  would  destroy  all 
strength  and  beauty  of  style,  by  subjecting  it  to  a  rigorous 
compliance  with  their  rules.  .  .  .  The  example  of  good  writers, 
the  approbation  of  men  of  letters,  the  judgment  of  sound 
critics  .  .  .  would  give  it  (visions  of  improving  the  language) 
a  beginning." 

In  1859  George  P.  Marsh,  one  of  the  pioneers  of  English 
studies  in  America,  said,  "Long  usage,  which  is  the  highest 
of  all  linguistic  authorities.  .  .  .  He  who  resolves  to  utter  or 
write  nothing  which  he  cannot  parse  will  find  himself  restricted 
to  a  beggarly  diction." 

In  1867,  W.  D.  Whitney  published  his  Language  and  the 
Study  of  Language.  In  this  famous  book,  Whitney  says, 
"The  maxim,  iisus  norma  loquendi,  usage  is  the  rule  of  speech, 
is  of  supreme  and  uncontrolled  validity  in  every  part  and 
parcel  of  every  human  tongue,  and  each  individual  can  make. 


INTEODUCTION  15 

his  fellows  talk  and  write  as  he  does  just  in  proportion  to  the 
influence  which  they  are  disposed  to  concede  to  him.  .  .  .  The 
majority  of  good  writers  and  speakers  of  English  is  the  only 
authority  which  can  make  a  word  good  English  in  the  part  of 
our  tongue  that  we  all  alike  use  and  value.  ...  In  any  culti- 
vated and  lettered  community,  the  cultivated  speech,  the 
language  of  letters,  is  the  central  point  towards  which  all  tlie 
rest,  other  than  literary  dialects  or  forms,  gravitate,  as  they 
are  broken  up  and  lose  their  hold.  .  .  .  The  speakers  of  lan- 
guage thus  constitute  a  republic,  or  rather,  a  democracy,  in 
which  authority  is  conferred  only  by  general  suffrage  and  for 
due  cause,  and  is  exercised  under  constant  supervision  and 
control."  Speaking  of  "English  in  the  highest  sense,"  he 
says,  "It  is  that  part  of  the  aggregate  which  is  supported 
by  the  usage  of  the  majority;  but  of  a  majority  made 
in  great  part  by  culture  and  education,  not  by  numbers 
alone. ' ' 

R.  G.  Latham  (1812-1888) ,  one  of  the  most  famous  linguistic 
scholars  of  England,  said  that  in  language  "whatever  is,  is 
right." 

Against  this  body  of  distinguished  writers,  Richard  Grant 
White,  the  American,  a  famous  Shakespearean  scholar,  threw 
himself  with  indomitable  vigor  and  vehemence  in  two  books  ^ 
on  language.  We  shall  state  White's  vie^^^3  briefly,  so  that 
the  reader  may  see  how  he  arrayed  himself  against  all  our 
authorities  from  Horace  to  Whitney.  ' '  The  authority  of  gen- 
eral usage,"  he  says,  "or  even  of  the  usage  of  great  writers, 
is  not  absolute  in  language.  .  .  .  There  is  a  misuse  of  words 
which  can  be  justified  by  no  authority,  however  great,  by  no 
usage,  however  general."  In  these  passages  he  rejects  the 
long-accepted  canon  that  good  English  is  the  English  of  repu- 
table authors,  provided  they  use  language  that  is  in  general 
and  present  use.  He  continues :  ' '  Speech,  the  product  of 
reason,  tends  more  and  more  to  conform  itself  to  reason ;  and 

^  Wordfi  and  Their  Uses  and  Er cry-day  English. 


16  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

when  grammar,  which  is  the  formulation  of  usage,  is  opposed 
to  reason,  there  arises,  sooner  or  later,  a  conflict  between 
logic,  or  the  law  of  reason,  and  grammar,  the  law  of  precedent, 
in  which  the  former  is  always  victorious.  ...  As  to  Avords 
and  the  use  of  words,  the  standard  is  either  reason,  whose  laws 
are  absolute,  or  analogy,  whose  milder  sway  hinders  anoma- 
lous, barbarous,  and  solecistic  changes,  and  helps  those  which 
are  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of  language.  .  .  .  Within  cer- 
tain limits  usage  has  absolute  authority  in  language.  ...  It 
has  been  said  that  the  nsage  which  controls  language  is  that 
of  great  writers  and  cultivated  speakers.  To  a  certain  extent 
this  is  true ;  but  it  is  not  true  without  important  qualification." 
White  means  that  no  array  of  great  names  can  make  us  accept 
a  word  or  a  syntactical  construction  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  it  is  logical.  With  this  as  his  war  cry,  he  attacks  some 
words  and  phrases  of  long  standing  in  the  language  and, 
because  he  cannot  parse  the  phrases  or  see  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  words  and  the  phrases,  rejects  them  utterly.  White 
shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  language  is  full  of  anomalies, 
of  irregularities,  that  baffle  both  the  etymologist  and  the 
grammarian.  He  ignored  the  fact  that  language  is  mightier 
than  logic ;  that  a  hundred  men  use  language  all  day  long 
to  every  one  man  that  can  argue  either  logically  or  psycho- 
logically. Langiiage  often  laughs  at  logic.  As  two  of  our 
recent  writers  on  rhetoric^  have  well  put  it,  "Usage  is,  after 
all,  illogical  and  arbitrary;  as  Montaigne  said,  'He  who 
would  fight  custom  with  grammar  is  a  fool.'  " 

Some  writers  besides  White  have  stumbled  at  this  point. 
Because  a  locution  is  what  they  call  illogical,  or  contrary  to 
reason,  they  denounce  it  as  bad  English.  Take  the  locutions 
all  of  us,  all  of  them,  hoth  of  us.  Though  the  writer  has  not 
watched  these  phrases  very  closely  in  the  literature,  he  does 
not  hesitate  to  .say  that  they  are  used  all  over  the  English 

1  Herrick  and  Damon  :  Xcic  Compositiou  and  Rlirtoric,  edition  of  1911, 
p.   241.  L> 


INTBODVCTION  17 

world  by  the  best  speakers  and  writers  and  by  millions  of 
educated  people.  Yet  they  are  attacked  by  such  a  popidai- 
writer  on  words  as  Quackenbos/  the  American ;  and  the  smaller 
textbook  makers  followed  him  because  his  books  were  used  in 
many  of  the  best  schools  and  colleges.  Dean  Alford,  the  author 
of  the  Queen's  English,  defended  these  phrases  in  1864  from 
the  attacks  of  some  English  purists.  Though  the  dean  did  not 
base  his  defense  upon  sound  linguistic  grounds,  he  was  feeling 
out  in  the  right  direction.  Now,  the  opponents  of  these 
phrases,  Quaekenbos  among  them,  argue  that  it  is  correct  to 
say  one  of  us,  two  of  us,  ten  of  us,  some  of  us,  fifty  of  us,  but 
absurd  to  say  both  of  us,  all  of  us,  because  "both"  takes  the 
two  included  in  "us"  and  "all"  takes  everybody,  while  "of" 
is  a  partitive  preposition ;  hence  the  phrases  are  illogical  and 
therefore  ungrammatical.  These  verbalists  are  either  disciples 
of  White  or  his  linguistic  fellows.  They  ignore  two  funda- 
mental facts:  (1)  These  phrases  have  been  part  and  parcel 
of  the  best  English  for  two  or  three  hundred  years.  (2)  They 
are  formed  according  to  analogy,  which  all  the  scholars,  includ- 
ing White  himself,  recognize  as  one  of  the  potent  factors  in 
the  growth  of  language.  Our  forefathers  had  been  saying 
two  of  us,  ten  of  us,  some  of  us,  many  of  us,  for  untold  cen- 
turies. Meantime  they  had  been  saying  ive  all,  all  wc,  they  all, 
all  they,  we  both,  and  it  was  perfectly  imtural  for  them  to 
extend  the  o/-phrase  so  as  to  include  these  last-named  groups; 
hence  came  both  of  us,  both  of  them,  all  of  vs,  all  of  than. 
These  are  all  due  to  analog}-,  one  of  the  potent  forces  of  lan- 
guage, a  force  of  whose  existence  Quaekenbos  would  seem  to 
have  been  entirely  ignorant.  Of  this  force,  Kichard  Grant 
White  knew  something  in  a  vague  way ;  but  he  did  not  apply 
it  in  the  case  of  numerous  analogical  forms  which  he  attacked 
vehemently. 

White,   speaking  of   "the   parents   of  language,"   includes 
"analogy,  whose  milder  sway  hinders  anomalous,  barbarous, 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  eilition  of  1S96,  p.  230. 


18  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

solecistic  changes."  This  is  a  negative  definition  and  unsatis- 
factory. Analogy  is  a  positive  force ;  it  is  defined  by  Professor 
0.  F.  Emerson^  as  "the  tendency  of  the  mind  to  bring  regu- 
larity out  of  irregularity,  similarity  out  of  dissimilarit}^  in  the 
forms  of  words. ' ' 

Discussing  the  parents  of  language,  White  continues : 
"One  parent  of  language  must  be  precedent.  .  .  .  True  and 
sound  language  is  therefore  the  product  of  precedent  and 
reason."  We  have  shown  that  reason  is  not  one  of  the  parents 
of  all  the  words  and  phrases  in  language :  the  phrases  all  of  us, 
etc.,  for  instance,  are  analogical  but  not  logical.  Even  prece- 
dent sometimes  gives  us  the  slip.  Some  words  violate  every 
tradition  of  language,  are  utterly  abnormal  and  anomalous. 
Take  the  word  electrocute,  for  instance.  It  is  spreading  among 
the  people  and  bids  fair  to  make  a  place  for  itself  in  good 
English.  It  is  made  up  of  the  Greek  -qXeKTpo  (electro)  and  the 
ending  of  the  Latin-English  execute.  The  people  who  use  this 
word  in  conversation  and  the  editors  who  use  it  in  their  columns 
do  not  stop  to  ask  whether  the  word  follows  the  precedents  of 
word-formation ;  they  use  the  word  because  they  need  it.  It  is 
the  shortest  way  of  saying  ' '  put  to  death  in  the  electric  chair. ' ' 
The  word  is  already  recognized  in  some  high  quarters  as  good 
English.  It  defies  all  of  White's  canons  of  usage;  it  comes 
under  the  canons  of  safer  guides  than  White. 

Having  stated  the  views  of  Richard  Grant  White  at  con- 
siderable length  and,  as  it  is  to  be  hoped,  put  the  unwary 
reader  on  his  guard  against  them,  let  us  pass  on  to  more  trust- 
worthy writers.  If  some  one  should  ask  why  White  is  entitled 
to  so  much  notice,  the  answer  would  be  that  his  two  books  on 
usage  are  found  where  the  volumes  of  Whitney  and  Louns- 
bury  are  almost  unheard  of. 

In  1873,  Fitzedward  Hall,-  the  distinguished  American 
scholar  and  authority,  said,  "By  accepted  usage  in  speech  we 

'^History  of  the  English  Language,  p.  264. 
"Modern  English,  pp.  40,  41. 


INTBOVrCTION  19 

understand  that  which  is  practised,  or  approved,  consentiently 
and  advertently,  by  the  best  writers  and  speakers  of  any 
given  time."  He  quotes  Quintilian's  consois^iis  eniditorum, 
already  cited  in  this  section. 

Quackenbos,  whose  books  have  had  considerable  influence, 
speaking  of  rhetorical  rules  (1896),  says,  "These  laws  are  not 
the  arbitrary  inventions  of  a  single  mind,  nor  the  expression 
of  a  single  nation  or  epoch;  they  have  been  induced  from  a 
study  of  man's  greatest  literary  efforts."  "Keputable"  he 
defines  as  "authorized  by  the  majority  of  writers  of  high 
reputation." 

Herriek  and  Damon,^  in  their  revised  Rhetoric  of  1911,  give 
George  Campbell's  canon  of  usage,  "national,  reputable,  and 
present."  "Reputable  words,"  they  say,  "are  those  national 
and  present  words  which  are  used  by  the  body  of  speakers 
and  writers  of  established  reputation.  .  .  .  Nor  is  a  word 
made  reputable  by  being  used  by  a  few  good  authors  here  and 
there." 

Lounsbury-  says,  "The  standard  of  speech  is  the  usage  of 
the  cultivated.  .  .  .  Clearly  what  Horace  had  in  mind  was  the 
usage  of  the  best  writers  and  speakers.  ...  It  is  the  practice 
and  consent  of  the  great  authors  that  determine  correctness 
of  speech.  The  pages  of  these  are  accessible  to  all.  If  they 
differ  among  themselves  about  details,  choice  is  allowable  until 
a  general  agreement  settles  in  course  of  time  upon  one  mode 
of  expression  as  prefera^ble  to  another  or  to  any  others  pro- 
posed. ...  If  a  word  or  construction  occurs  in  Cicero,  the 
question  of  its  propriety  (for  Latin)  is  settled  at  once.  .  .  . 
The  study  of  our  best  authors  settles  that  [=any]  point  de- 
cisively. .  .  .  Anything  is  good  usage  which  is  sanctioned  by 
the  usage  of  a  large  majority  of  speakers  and  writers,  inde- 
pendent of  the  character  of  the  individuals  who  make  up  that 
majority.  .  .  .  When  we  find  an  expression  of  any  sort  em- 

^  New  Composition  and  Rlieforic,  p.  238. 

-The  Standard  of  Uftagc  in  English,  chapter  II. 


20  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

ployed  by  a  writer  of  the  lirst  rank,  the  assuini)tioii  must 
always  be  that  this  particular  expression  is  proper."^ 

Greenough  and  Kittredge,-  two  distinguished  American 
scholars,  say,  "No  better  standard  can  be  found  than  the  easy 
language  of  cultivated  men  who  are  neither  specialists  nor 
pedants."  Speaking  of  the  principles  of  propriety  in  lan- 
guage, they  say,  "Such  principles  are  inferred,  in  the  main, 
from  the  works  of  men  of  genius.  .  .  .  Usage  must  be  limited 
in  time.  .  .  .  Usage  is  the  onl}-  standard  in  linguistic  matter?:. 
.  .  .  Usage  is  shifting;  language  never  stands  still."  They 
pooh-pooh  the  idea  that  a  word  has  an  original  and  essential 
meaning :  it  means  just  what  it  is  intended  by  the  speaker  to 
mean  and  understood  to  mean  by  the  hearer.  A  word,  they 
say,  is  a  mere  conventional  sign. 

A  very  recent  writer  on  usage  is  Professor  George  P.  Krapp. 
In  his  Modern  English  ^  he  draws  a  distinction  between  ' '  good 
English ' '  and  * '  standard  English. ' '  The  former  he  subdivides 
into  three  classes :  popular  English,  colloquial  English,  and 
formal,  or  literary,  English.  All  standard  English,  he  says,  is 
good  English,  but  not  all  good  English  is  standard.  Good 
English  is  English  that  "hits  the  mark."  We  have  good 
popular,  or  vulgar,  English,  good  colloquial  English,  and  good 
literary  English. 

The  first  objection  to  this  treatment  of  the  subject  is  his 
unprecedented  use  of  "good."  Ninety-nine  persons  in  a  hun- 
dred would  never  understand  "good"  as  lie  ust^s  it;  we  are 
accustomed  to  the  phrase  "good  English"  in  a  far  different 
meaning.  Again:  we  can  hardly  grasp  the  idea  of  "good 
vulgar  English":  the  terms  seem  to  the  average  mind  abso- 
lutely incompatilile. 

A  very  serious  objection  to  Professor  Krapp 's  treatment  of 
usage  is  that  he  seems  to  argue  for  a  sort  of  isolated,  neighbor- 

^  The  Standard  of  r.<iage  in  Enyli.sh,  chaptor  II. 

*  Words  and  Their  IVays  in  English  Speech,  p.  122. 

spp.  .•525-334. 


INTEODUCTION  21 

hood  English.  "English  that  hits  the  mark"  in  this  or  that 
commimity  is,  to  him,  good  English.  What,  then,  becomes  of 
the  general  and  reputable  usage  for  wiiieh  we  have  been 
striving  and  struggling?  Shall  every  locality  have  its  own 
patois  or  local  lingo?  Shall  a  person  adopt  the  local  peculi- 
arities of  every  place  he  goes  to  or  lives  in?  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  matter  of  pronunciation.  If  he  calls  for  ham  and 
eggs  in  New  York  on  Sunday,  shall  he  call  for  'am  and  heggs 
in  London  the  next  Saturday  because  the  waiters  will  under- 
stand him?  Or  suppose  he  travels  in  America  for  a  living. 
When  he  orders  his  breakfast  in  New  York,  should  he  say  to 
the  waiter,  "Wg  are  these  eggs  cold?  Wen  were  they  boiled? 
Were  did  you  cook  them?"  A  few  hours  later,  in  Richmond, 
he  changes  to  ichy,  when,  and  where. 

Once  more :  take  a  cultivated  family  moving  from  a  center 
of  refinement  to  certain  new,  less  refined  communities.  Instead 
of  ' '  came, ' '  shall  they  say  ' ' come ' '  ?  Instead  of  ' '  ought  not  to 
have  done  that, ' '  shall  they  say  ' '  hadn  't  ought  to  do  it "  ?  In- 
stead of  "couldn't  go,"  shall  they  say  "couldn't  get  to  go," 
and  so  on  through  the  various  corruptions  used  by  the  better 
classes  of  some  of  our  communities?  Is  it  possible  that  Pro- 
fessor- Krapp  really  advises  this  ? 

The  author  has  quoted  nineteen  Avriters  on  language.  Of 
these,  eighteen  agree  in  the  main.  One,  Richard  Grant  White, 
is  arrayed  against  the  others.  Authority,  say  the  eighteen,  is 
the  test.  He  says  that  no  amount  of  authority  counts  for  any- 
thing unless  the  word  or  the  phrase  is  based  upon  precedent, 
reason,  and  analogy.  This  canou  has  been  dissected  in  an 
earlier  paragraph. 

As  to  the  authority  in  standard  English,  the  eighteen  men 
differ  in  no  important  details.  They  all  agree  substantially 
that  "the  man  in  the  street"  counts  little  in  matters  of  usage ; 
that  educated,  cultivated,  learned  men  and  women  fix  the 
standard  of  language.  Some  include  celebrated  speakers;  but, 
since  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get  any  definite  data  as  to 


+ 


22  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

the  English  used  by  public  speakers,  since  those  speakers  often 
use  a  free-and-easy  colloquial  English,  and  since  many  of  their 
most  finished  addresses  find  their  way  into  print,  we  may 
safely  fall  back  upon  the  idea  that  all  of  our  eighteen  would  be 
satisfied  if  we  could  base  our  opinions  upon  the  usage  of 
printed  books  "accessible  to  all,"  provided  the  authors  come 
under  the  classes  named  by  our  authorities  as  makers  and 
masters  of  language. 

I^et  us  go  back  to  Greenough  and  Kittredge.  They  have 
already  been  quoted  as  saying  that  no  better  standard  can  be 
found  than  "the  easy  language  of  cultivated  men  who  are 
neither  specialists  nor  pedants."  This  sentence  is  pregnant 
with  meaning.  A  specialist  is  apt  to  have  "fad"  words  that 
he  likes  to  air  on  occasion.  A  pedant  is  absolutely  unreliable 
in  matters  of  usage:  he  often  "murders  the  King's  English" 
in  trying  to  save  it.  A  cultivated,  refined  man  of  liberal  cul- 
ture not  addicted  to  any  specialty  and  not  given  to  pedantry 
is  apt  to  use  easy  and  elegant  language  free  from  affectation 
and  from  priggishness.  Such  men  will  be  quoted  freely  in  the 
ensuing  sections.  They  have  written  books  in  the  past  and 
are  writing  at  present.  Standard  authors  of  national  or  of 
international  fame,  also,  generally  write  with  ease  and  spon- 
taneity. They  are  not  thinking  about  the  language  they  use. 
Their  minds  are  set  upon  the  subject,  the  plot,  the  characters, 
the  action,  the  psychology  of  their  creations.  Language  with 
them  is  only  incidental ;  with  a  pedant  it  is  all  in  all ;  he 
measures  his  words,  mouths  his  sentences,  analyzes  his  phrases, 
bores  his  readers,  can  hardly  talk  for  his  words.  Scott,  the 
great  "wizard,"  laughed  at  Lockhart,  the  wordmonger  and 
verbalist.  One  is  immortal ;  the  other  rarely  mentioned  in 
literature. 

The  writer  would  be  willing  to  construe  Greenough  and 
Kittredge 's  word  "language"  as  meaning  spoken  English 
also.  Cultivated  talkers,  cultivated  lawyers  in  their  plead- 
ings, cultivated  preachers  in  their  sermons — all  of  these  help 


INTBODUCTION  23 

US  to  realize  the  beauty  of  our  language.  Dean  Alford  in 
his  Queen's  English  emphasizes  the  usage  of  "polite  society"; 
but  there  might  be  some  danger  when  we  began  to  draw  these 
social  distinctions. 

The  present  writer  will  quote  a  few  scientific  students  of 
language  like  Whitney,  Lounsbury,  Earle,  Bradley,  and  Skeat 
because  they  are  not  dry-as-dust  specialists  but  eminent,  not 
merely  as  scholars  but  also  as  men  of  liberal  culture.  We 
have  all  seen  linguistic  specialists  whose  English  could  not  be 
quoted  because  it  was  so  tainted  with  priggishness  and 
self-consciousness. 

In  the  ensuing  sections,  the  author  will  take  up  a  number 
of  locutions  at  issue  in  our  language,  most  of  them  burning 
questions  in  the  best  grammars  and  rhetorics.  Evidence  pro 
and  con  will  be  given,  the  opinions  of  the  best  grammars, 
rhetorics,  and  dictionaries  cited,  and  the  reader  left  to  draw 
his  own  conclusions.  In  many  cases  the  word  or  phrase  will  be 
traced  through  the  literature  for  centuries.  If  valuable  mate- 
rial is  available  in  good  books  on  language,  it  will  be  quoted 
freely,  so  as  to  bring  the  story  of  the  locution  up  to  date.  One 
book  that  will  be  quoted  very  often  is  The  Standard  of  Usage 
in  English  by  the  late  Professor  T.  R.  Lounsbury,  whose  name 
should  be  familiar  to  every  student  of  words  and  usage. 

About  two  hundred  authors,  either  "reputable"  or  eminent, 
will  be  cited  or  quoted.  Those  who  believe  in  the  authority  of 
a  few  supreme  writers  will  find  that  these  have  been  empha- 
sized. Those  who  prefer  to  find  their  authority  in  a  majority 
or  a  large  number  of  reputable  authors  will  no  doubt  be 
satisfied.  The  author  of  this  volume  does  not  believe  in  an 
oligarchy  in  language.  He  does  not  rest  his  conclusions  exclu- 
sively upon  the  usage  of  Tennyson,  Wordsworth,  Macaulay, 
Dryden,  Addison,  Shakespeare,  and  a  few  others;  he  believes 
that  the  language  is  made  not  only  by  these  but  by  stars  of 
lesser  magnitude,  by  men  and  women  of  culture  and  refine- 
ment who  have  contributed  to  literature  in  a  less  distinguished 


24  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

degree,  such  as  the  editors  of  our  best  literary  journals,  promi- 
nent teachers,  scholars,  preachers — many  of  whom  have  a 
genius  for  idiom  and  are  competent  to  criticize  the  great 
authors. 

Most  of  the  writers  cited  in  this  volume  have  considerable 
reputation.  Some,  as  alread}^  said,  are  men  of  lesser  note  but 
thoroughly  qualified  to  write  pure,  idiomatic  English.  In  this 
day  when  many  teachers  are  using  some  of  the  periodicals  as 
models  of  style  to  be  followed  by  their  classes,  it  would  seem 
eminently  proper  for  a  writer  on  usage  to  quote  men  and 
women  of  culture  and  education  who,  though  not  supreme 
authors,  have  won  repute  in  the  world  of  letters.  The  tables 
in  this  volume  will  show  such  men  and  women. 

In  the  following  pages,  dicta  from  some  of  the  most  popular 
textbooks  in  rhetoric  and  grammar  are  quoted.  The  pros  and 
cons  are  given  impartially.  These  books  are  written  by  con- 
scientious men  who  merit  our  thanks  for  the  service  they  have 
rendered  us.  Sometimes  we  cannot  accept  their  decisions,  but 
we  must  respect  them,  rejecting  them  only  when  careful  study 
of  the  literature  shows  them  to  be  wrong.  Only  an  exhaustive 
study  of  the  literature  can  decide  most  of  the  questions  raised 
by  these  writers. 

Most  of  the  great  dictionaries,  also,  will  be  quoted  pro  and 
con.  Compiled  by  staffs  of  editors,  these  works  are  valuable 
and  indispensable.  Each  of  them  gives  us  the  opinion  of  a 
committee  of  scholarly  and  conscientious  men  as  to  this  or  that 
locution.  We  may  feel  fairly  safe  when  we  find  that  we  have 
the  svipport  of  one  or  more  of  these  great  dictionaries.  Until 
some  laborious  plodder  can  take  time  to  ransack  the  literature, 
to  see  what  authors  are  on  this  or  that  side,  we  accept  the 
decision  of  such  boards  of  editors  and  such  collaborators  as 
we  see  on  the  title  pages  of  the  best  dictionaries.  One  criti- 
cism, however,  we  may  venture.  One  fault  we-  must  find  with 
most  of  these  publications:  lliey  too  often  l)ase  their  claim  to 
public  favor  upon  quantity  ratlier  tlinii  upon  quality — upon 


ixthoduction'  25 

the  number  of  words  they  admit,  oftentimes  upon  very  slight 
support  from  the  usage  of  reputable  authors.  A  more  serious 
fault  remains  to  be  mentioned :  in  quoting  from  great  authors 
they  do  not  tell  us  whether  the  writer  is  speaking  in  propria 
persona  or  through  some  character  who  uses  English  far  below 
the  literary  and  cultivated  level.  This  charge  can  be  brought 
against  some  of  the  most  famous  of  our  dictionaries.  In  the 
present  volume,  this  point  will  be  carefully  safeguarded. 

The  subject  under  discussion  in  the  following  pages  is  more 
complicated  than  it  might  seem  to  be  :  it  is  worth  a  whole  man's 
whole  thought.  Wliile  we  are  writing  our  treatises,  language 
is  changing  all  around  us ;  the  volume  published  in  1915  may 
need  revision  in  1925.  Personal  feeling,  environment,  a  hun- 
dred subtle  causes,  affect  the  student  of  usage,  however  con- 
scientious. None  of  us  can  always  be  riglit :  Ave  are  only 
seekers  after  the  truth.  The  best  of  us  will  differ  among  our- 
selves :  how  good  scholars  differ  will  appear  in  the  following 
pages.  The  best  of  them  speak  very  modestly  ;  only  the  sciolists 
are  always  certain. 

One  prime  object  of  this  volume  is  to  show  the  continuous 
use  of  certain  words  and  phrases  in  the  literature.  If  a  locu- 
tion .can  be  so  traced  from  early  periods  down  to  recent  or 
present  days,  there  is  every  reason  to  regard  it  as  good  English. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  new  word  or  phrase,  if  found  in  enough 
standard  writers,  ought  to  be  given  a  fair  chance  to  spread 
through  the  language.  The  hostility  to  any  particular  w'ord, 
if  it  supplies  a  real  need,  should  not  be  encouraged. 

The  tables,  or  lists,  in  the  ensuing  pages  are,  of  couree,  not 
exhaustive :  they  simply  show  how  often  the  various  locutions 
have  been  found  in  over  75,000  pages  of  English  and  American 
literature.  If  a  statement  such  as  "Found  in  65  reputable 
authors  453  times"  does  not  carry  conviction  to  the  reader, 
it  might  at  least  entitle  the  word  to  a  fair  chance  and  help 
to  mitigate  any  attacks  made  upon  it  by  purists  and  pedants. 
In  matters  of  usage,  there  will  very  often  be  a  margin  of 


26  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

uncertainty:  the  writer  does  not  claim  that  he  can  positively 
establish  a  word,  nor  does  he  attempt  to  do  so.  This  volume  is 
historical  rather  than  polemic. 

A  distinguished  student  of  usage  has  said  recently  that  only 
great  authors  like  Tennyson,  Macaulay,  Uryden,  Addison,  and 
a  few  others  should  be  put  into  the  tables,  or  lists,  used  in  this 
volume ;  that  scholars  like  Whitney  and  authors  like  van  Dyke 
should  be  mentioned  in  the  footnotes.  The  writer  has  not 
adopted  this  policy.  It  would  certainly  seem  that  such  men 
as  these  understand  the  idiom  and  the  "genius"  of  the  lan- 
guage well  enough  to  be  recognized  in  the  body  of  the  volume. 

The  passages  quoted  in  the  various  sections  of  this  volume 
will  be  taken  largely  from  the  greater  authors,  as  they  no 
doubt  should  be  given  special  emphasis.  No  one  open  to  con- 
viction and  no  one  looking  for  daylight  will  refuse  to  consider 
the  usage  of  the  supreme  masters  of  language. 

Another  point  that  should  be  made  clear  is  that  the  author 
of  this  volume  relies  mainly  upon  usage  to  establish  a  locution. 
When  he  shows  that  a  word  has  either  analogy  or  precedent  or 
logic  in  its  favor,  these  are  distinctly  subsidiary  and  subordi- 
nate :  "custom  is  the  most  certain  mistress  of  language."  The 
only  question  is  how  much  usage  is  required  to  give  the  word 
or  phrase  a  place  in  standard  English. 

In  the  ensuing  pages,  naught  will  be  "set  down  in  malice." 
The  author  will  not  ally  himself  with  those  whom  he  regards 
as  vehement  verbalists.  If  banter  is  used,  it  will  be  good- 
natured  and  friendly.  Scholars  should  never  use  the  poisoned 
rapier;  they  should  treat  one  another  as  fellow-laborers  and 
as  gentlemen ;  no  Thersites  should  be  admitted  into  their 
assembly. 


ACCEPT  OF  27 

II 

ACCEPT  OF 

Which  is  standard,  to  accept  or  to  accept  of  a  thing ?  The 
second  phrase  is  still  heard  occasionally  in  polite  conversation 
and  in  public  speaking,  but  is  rare  in  recent  literature.  George 
Campbell  in  1776  said  that  both  accept  and  accept  of  were 
coi-rect  in  his  day,  but  that  he  preferred  the  former.  "Web- 
ster's International  Dictionary  quotes  Milton  as  using  accept 
of.    The  writer  has  seen  it  in  the  following  authors : 

Shakespeare     1  Addison  2 

King   James   Bible 2  Goldsmith    1 

Massinger    1  Franklin    1 

Sir   Thos.   Browne 1  Eichard'on    1 

Izaak  Walton    1  Lamb    1 

Milton    1  IMilman    1 

Congreve    1  IMacaiilay    1 

Baxter    1  Lowell    1 

The  language  is  dropping  the  "of"  from  such  phrases  as 
accept  of,  taste  of,  but  admit  of  is  still  literary. 

Milman  in  his  History  of  the  Jews  says,  "to  accept  of 
equitable  terms  of  peace. ' '  Macaulay  in  1827  said,  ' '  The  world 
would  be  in  a  wretched  state  indeed,  if  no  person  were  to 
accept  of  power  under  a  form  of  government  which  he  thinks 
susceptible  of  improvement." 

Accept  with  objective  noun  is  the  regular  construction  in 
standard  authors,  but  the  "of"  form  has  some  high  authority 
from  Shakespeare  down  to  Milman,  Macaulay,  and  James 
Russell  Lowell. 


28  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

III 
ADJECTIVES  NOT  COMPARED 

As  to  forms  like  more  iJerfctt,  etc.,  the  "lesser  gram- 
marians" are  very  rigid.  Even  the  "greater  grammarians" 
are  inclined  to  be  stricter  than  the  famous  writers.  The 
schoolmasters  rarely  give  us  an  inkling  that  such  forms  as 
deadest,  most  perfect,  most  unique,  could  be  anything  short  of 
criminal.  Even  Bain  ^  condemns  forms  like  chief  est,  extremest, 
most  perfect.  Carpenter  -  says, ' '  Words  like  perfect,  complete, 
universal  can  be  compared  only  when  used  loosely."  Under 
adjectives  that  cannot  be  compared,  Nesfield^  names  perfect 
and  adds,  "Such  a  phrase  as  more  perfect  is  a  short,  but  inac- 
curate, way  of  saying  'more  nearly  approaching  perfection.'  " 
If  these  greater  grammarians  are  strict,  what  can  be  expected 
of  the  lesser? 

Lounsbury  ■*  is  as  usual  very  liberal.  He  says  that  the  gram- 
marians are  often  unjustifialily  strict  in  regard  to  words  like 
perfect,  supreme,  etc.,  and  that  these  words  have  always  been 
compared  in  all  periods  of  English.  He  also  cites  perfectior, 
pcrfectissimiis,  from  Cicero,  to  show  that  English  is  not  pecu- 
liar in  this  matter.    Kittredge  agrees  with  Lounsbury. 

The  present  writer  has  seen  the  following  cases :  Chief  est, 
seven  times  in  the  King  James  Bible ;  four  times  in  Shake- 
speare ;  once  each  in  Marlowe,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Butler,  Swift, 
Lamb,  Emerson,  Dean  Trench,  Phoebe  Cary,  Saintsbury,  and 
Tennyson.  More  perfect,  once  in  the  Bible.  3Iost  unique, 
once  in  Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke.  Most  favorite,  once  each  in  Dr. 
Johnson,  Irving,  and  Professor  William  Minto.  Most  princi- 
pal, once  in  the  Prayer  Book.  Very  unanimous,  twice  in 
Bishop  Burnet.     Deadest,  once  each  in  Emerson  and  Brown- 

1  Higher  English  Orammar,  p.  149. 

-  Princiiilrs  of  English  Grammar,  p.  10."). 

"  EvgViKh   Grammar  Past  and  Present,  \>.   VA. 

*Ilist(inj  of  the  English  Language,  edition  of  IDdT,  ji.  2"i2, 


ADJECTIVES  XOT  COMPARED  29 

ing.  Correct  est,  once  in  Lamb.  Extremest,  twice  iu  Con- 
greve.  Most  excellent  and  more  excellent  are  found  in  the 
Bible;  the  former  certainly  has  wide  vogue  in  polite  society. 
Very  excellent  comes  out  prominently  in  one  classic  passage  in 
the  Prayer  Book  Psalter. 

These  examples  should  carry  weight  with  all  who  recognize 
authority  in  language.  Most  of  the  authors  cpioted  are  emi- 
nent. Some  are  especially  distinguished  in  the  study  of  words. 
A  few,  though  not  of  general  fame,  are  literary  men  of  a  high 
order  and  well  known  to  students  of  literature. 

The  writer  does  not  advise  the  promiscuous  use  of  the 
locutions  under  discussion,  but  is  merely  trying  to  show  how 
the  language  is  striving  to  throw  off  the  shackles  with  which 
the  lesser  grammarians,  the  purists,  and  the  pedants  have  long 
sought  to  bind  it. 

The  lists  above  show  that  Lounsbury  is  right :  these  forms 
have  been  used  all  the  way  through  the  literature  from  Shake- 
speare— or  ]\Ialory — to  Henry  van  Dyke. 

A  few  passages  from  the  standard  authors  will  be  interesting. 

Tennyson  in  The  Princess  says, 

Our  chief  est  comfort  is  the  little  child 
Of  one  unworthy  mother. 

In  The  Song  of  ASolotnon  we  read,  "'My  beloved  is  the  chief  est 
among  ten  thousand."  Emerson  in  The  Poet  says.  "The  ety- 
mologist finds  the  deadest  word  to  have  been  once  a  lirilliant 
■picture."  In  Acts  24:22,  we  read,  "having  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  that  way."  In  Saint  Luke's  Gospel  we  find, 
''most  excellent  Theophilus."  In  Fomans  2:18,  we  have 
"Ihings  that  are  more  excellent."  In  the  Prayer  Book  Psalter, 
we  read.  "Yen/  excellent  things  are  spoken  of  thee,  0  Zion." 


30  STUDIKS  JN  rSAGE 

IV 

ADVERBS    USED   AS   ADJECTIVES 

Kellner,^  the  Austrian  scholar,  says :  ' '  From  its  predicative 
position  the  adverb  next  proceeds  to  be  used  even  as  an  attri- 
bute preceding  the  substantive.  .  .  .  The  adverb  preceding  the 
noun  is  of  recent  date  and  is  probably  due  to  the  influence  of 
the  Greek."  He  quotes  from  Middle  English,  the  pre-Shake- 
spearean  drama,  Pope,  Byron,  and  Dickens,  and  also  cites  par- 
allel cases  from  Latin  and  Greek. 

Matzner^  characterizes  these  words  as  quasi-representative 
of  the  attribute.  He  cites  examples  from  inimerous  authors 
of  various  periods. 

Whitney,^  speaking  of  four  of  these  words,  above,  almost, 
sometime,  and  then,  says,  "Sometimes  (and  less  properly) 
even  as  an  attributive  adjective,"  but  he  uses  almost  oblivion 
in  one  of  his  own  books. 

E.  A.  Abbott*  says,  "Some  adverbs,  especially  those  of 
place,  are  used  with  nouns  almost  like  adjectives,  except  that 
they  rarely  come  before  the  noun."  He  cites  passages  from 
Shakespeare,  Byron,  and  Thackeray.  He  approves  of  the 
above  argument  and  the  then  world.    (See  pages  31,  36,  below.) 

George  P.  Krapp  ^  recognizes  these  locutions  and  cites  ex- 
amples from  Theodore  Roosevelt  and  Cardinal  Newman. 
Krapp  treats  then,  down,  and  outer. 

Baskervill  and  Sewell"  say,  "By  a  convenient  brevity,  ad- 
verbs are  sometimes  used  as  adjectives."  They  cite  passages 
from  Shakespeare,  the  King  James  Bible,  Ruskin,  Trench,  and 

'  Historical  Oiitlinn^  of  En(jlixli  Ffyntax,  pp.  31.  268. 
^  Enf/lish  Grammar  (Grocc's  translation).  III.  138,  139. 
^  Enscntials  of  E)i<jlish  Grammar,  p.  171. 
*  IIow  to  Parse,  p.  241. 
^  Modern  EnylMi,  p.  30S. 
^  Enylish  Grammar,  p.  110. 


ADVEBBS  USED  AS  ADJECTIVES  31 

Trollope  that  involve  the  words  then,  sometime,  seldom,  and 
often. 

Jespersen/  in  showing  how  free  the  English  language  is 
from  pedantry  and  grammatical  rigidity,  speaks  of  "adverbs 
and  prepositional  suffixes  used  attributively,"  and  illustrates 
by  the  phrases  his  then  residence  and  an  almost  reconciliation 
used  by  Thackeray. 

Nesfield  -  says,  ' '  the  adverb  that  precedes  the  noun  does  not 
qualify  the  noun  but  some  participle  or  adjective  under- 
stood." For  instance,  "the  then  world"  means  the  world 
then  existing. 

A.  S.  Ilill,^  in  his  school  Rhetoric,  though  not  very  partial 
to  these  locutions,  admits  that  the  then  quoted  above  has  estab- 
lished itself  in  the  language ;  and  he  adds  that  ahovc  seems  to 
be  gaining  ground. 

Let  us  now  take  up  some  of  these  words  seriatim. 

I.  ABOVE 

This  is  condemned  by  Genung*  and  Quackenbos^  in  their 
textbooks.  The  Standard  Dictionary  does  not  recognize  it. 
A.  S.  Hill  is  rather  hostile,  and  gives  an  example  to  be  corrected. 
He  is  inclined  to  criticize  the  New  English  Dictionary  because, 
in  defending  ahove  as  an  adjective,  it  quoted  but  one  passage 
and  that  from  a  rather  obscure  author. 

Dean  Alford,^  on  being  criticized  for  using  ahove  as  an 
adjective,  said  that,  while  not  elegant,  it  was  not  nncommon. 

Kellner''  recognizes  above  as  an  adjective  and  himself  uses 
the  above  instance.  The  Century  Dictionary  says  above  has 
the  force  of  an  adjective  in  such  phrases  as  "the  above  par- 

1  Groifth  and  Structure  of  the  EnglisJi  Lanfjuage,  p.  15. 

^English  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  SO. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  290. 

*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1000,  p.  301. 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  ISOfl,  p.  229. 

"  The  Queen's  English,  edition  of  1S6G,  p.  201. 

■^  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Sgntajf,  p.  2(!!S. 


32  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

ticulars,''  in  which  "cited''  or  "mentioned''  is  understood. 
Wehster  and  tlie  New  Englisli  Dictionary  say  that  this  word  is 
often  i;sed  elliptically  as  an  adjective.  Miitzner^  cites  the 
ahove  proverb  from  Scott  and  the  above  title  from  Ilalliwell. 
The  writer  lias  seen  above  in  Benjamin  Franklin  and  in  ITawr 
tliorne.  The  last-named  author  says  the  above  pictifres  and 
the  above  paragraph ;  also,  "It  is  not  of  pictures  like  the  ahove 
that  galleries,  in  Rome  or  elsewhere,  are  made  up,"  etc, 

S.  AFTER 

After  is  recognized  as  an  adjective  by  the  Century  Diction- 
ary; by  the  New  English  Dictionary,  with  numerous  quota- 
tions from  the  literature ;  by  the  Standard  Dictionary ;  by 
Webster,  quoting  Marshall.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  recognize 
it,  quoting  De  Quincey  and  Charles  Kingsley. 

The  writer  has  seen  after  moment  in  Coleridge;  after  years 
in  Jefferson;  after  apostle  in  Froude;  her  after  reputation  in 
Bulwer;  an  after  day  in  T.  N.  Talfourd ;  after  lectures,  after 
nation,  and  after  langnage  in  Trench ;  after  life  and  after 
career  in  Herbert  Spencer ;  after  life  twice  in  Sir  Henry 
Taylor;  after  times  in  E.  A.  Freeman. 

Froude  uses  after  in  his  Lives  of  the  Saints,  "And  again, 
when  Patrick  is  described  as  the  after  apostle,  raising  the  dead 
Celts  to  life,"  etc.  Lamb,  in  his  Barbara  8 — ,  says,  "in  the 
zenith  of  her  after  reputation  it  was  a  delightful  sight,"  etc. 
Coleridge  (Essays  and  Lectures)  says,  "He  who  possesses 
imagination  enough  to  live  with  his  forefathers,  and,  leav- 
ing comparative  reflection  for  an  after  moment,"  etc.,  and, 
"nothing  superior  to  them  can  be  met  with  in  the  productions 
of  his  after  years." 

The  large  number  of  words  like  aftermath,  now  established 
in  the  language,  proves  that  after  was  long  used  as  an  adjective 

''  FjHfiliKh   eirnmmar   (Oroco's  translation),  HI.  13S. 
-  En()lifsh  CI  ram  7)1  ay,  p.  114. 


AD r EBBS  USED  AS  ADJECTIVES  33 

and  developed  compounds,    it  was  used  as  an  adjective  in  the 
Anglo-Saxon  period  and  has  never  lost  this  force  entirely. 

In  composition  we  do  not  need  after  as  an  adjective  as  much 
as  we  do  above;  hence  its  comparative  infrequency. 

J.  ALMOST 

The  use  of  almost  as  adjective  is  condemned  by  A.  S.  Ilill,^ 
Quackenbos,^  and  Genung"''  in  their  textbooks. 

It  is  recognized  by  the  Standard  and  the  New  English  dic- 
tionaries, the  latter  quoting  Jeremy  Collier,  Southey,  and  W.  D. 
Whitney.  It  is  not  recognized  by  Webster  and  the  Century 
Dictionary.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  quote  the  almost  terror 
from  Thackeray,  to  show  that  an  adverl)  may  be  used  as  an 
adjective. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  almost  tragedy  in  Saintsbury;  the 
almost  terror  in  Thackeray;  the  eilmost  insanity  and  the  almost 
impossibility  in  Hawthorne;  the  almost  oblivion  and  the  almost 
universality  in  Whitney;  the  almost  diversity  in  Coleridge; 
the  almost  impossibility  in  George  Campbell;  their  edmost  boy- 
hood in  Sir  Henry  Taylor. 

4.  HITHER 

Hither  is  treated  as  an  adjective  by  Matzner,  who  quotes  the 
hither  side  from  Milton.  The  Standard  Dictionary  recognizes 
it.  The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Motley  and 
the  Century  Magazine.  Webster  recognizes  it,  with  quotations 
from  Milton,  Tennyson,  and  Huxley.  Even  Richard  Grant 
White  says  the  hither  side.  The  New  English  Dictionary  rec- 
ognizes hither  as  an  adjective,  quoting  Milton,  Merivale,  Haw^- 
thorne,  and  John  Earle.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  quoting  a  passage  from  Lord  Clarendon.  The  author 
has  seen  hither  hank  and  hither  side  in  Hawthorne. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  290. 
"Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  p.  220. 
8  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  303. 


34  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Tennyson  says, 

And  on  the  liitlur  side  nr  so,  she  look'd 
Of  twenty  siiinmers. 

J.  OFTEN 

Often  is  recognized  as  an  adjective  by  Webster,  with  quota- 
tions from  the  Bible  and  from  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  The 
Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Puttenham,  Ben 
Jonson,  Burton,  and  Tennyson.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  /  Tlmothij  5,  23.  Professor  John  Earle ^ 
quotes  three  early  modern  authorities  that  use  it.  The  Stand- 
ard Dictionary  does  not  recognize  it.  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionary calls  it  archaic,  but  quotes  passages  from  Carlyle  and 
W.  D.  Ilowells. 

The  writer  has  seen  often  failings,  often  speech,  often  fears, 
and  often  j^revailings  in  Bacon;  often  ejaculations  in  Jeremy 
Taylor;  thine  often  infirmities  in  the  Bible;  the  often  changing 
of  persons  in  Sidney;  an  often  chance  in  Tennyson.  It  occurs 
in  Shakespeare,  Tyndale,  and  Milton.  The  only  case  which  the 
writer  has  seen  in  recent  literature  is  the  one  quoted  frqm 
Tennyson. 

This  nse  of  often  is  little  needed  as  we  have  "numerous" 
and  "frequent."  We  rarely  hear  it  in  polite  conversation, 
on  the  platform,  or  in  the  pulpit. 

The  most  familiar  passage  involving  this  use  of  often  is 
I  Timothy  5,  23:  "Drink  no  longer  water,  but  use  a  little 
wine  for  thy  stomach's  sake  and  thine  often  infirmities." 
Jeremy  Taylor  in  Holy  Living  says,  "so  retire  again  with 
often  ejaculations  and  acts  of  entertainment  to  your-  beloved 
guest."    Tennyson  in  Oareth  and  Lynette  says, 

an  ofte)i  chance 
In  those  brain-stunninor  shocks,  and   tourney-falls, 
Frights  to  my  heart. 

The  Oxford  Dictionar}^  is  right  in  saying,  "Now  archaic." 

"^  PliUology  of  the  English  Tongue,  edition  of  1SS7,  p.  214. 


ADVERBS  USED  AS  ADJECTIVES  35 

6.  SELDOM 

The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  seldom  as  an  adjec- 
tive, quoting  Tyndale,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Lamb,  and  the  Pall 
Mall  Gazette.  The  Standard  Dictionary  recognizes  it.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Shakespeare. 
Oliphant  ^  says  the  word  is  used  as  an  adjective  in  Yorkshire. 
Webster  and  the  Century,  however,  call  it  archaic. 

Tyndale  uses  it  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible.  Shakespeare 
has  seldom  state  and  seldom  pleasures;  Jeremy  Taylor,  seldom 
virtues,  seldom  anger,  and  seldom  instances.  The  writer  has 
seen  it  as  a  predicate  adjective  in  Richard  Baxter. 

The  adjectival  use  of  seldom  is  very  rare  in  modern  litera- 
ture. We  have  "rare,"  "infrequent,"  and  other  words  to 
convey  its  meaning,  and  seldom  is  almost  confined  to  tlie 
adverbial  use. 

7.  SOMETIME 

Sometime  as  an  adjective  is  recognized  by  Webster's  Inter- 
national and  the  Century  dictionaries,  which  quote  passages 
from  Purchas,  Shakespeare,  and  T.  N.  Talfourd  (died  1854). 
The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  quotes  mi/  sometime  general 
from  Shakespeare.  The  Standard  does  not  recognize  it  as  an 
adjective.  IVIatzner  quotes  two  passages  from  Shakespeare. 
Baskervill  and  Sewell  -  treat  it  as  an  adjective,  using  the  same 
passage  from  Shakespeare  as  the  Century  and  Webster's 
International. 

The  phrase  sometime  fellow  of  such  and  such  a  university 
is  still  standard  in  England.  Except  in  tliis  connection,  the 
locution  is  rare  in  recent  English.  The  writer  has  seen  no 
case  in  this  course  of  reading,  but  scholars  sometimes  speak  of 
themselves  as  sometime  professor  in,  etc. 

The  most  familiar  passage  involving  this  locution  is 

our  sometime  sister,  now  our  qneen.     {Bamlet  I.  ii.  8.) 

1  The  Kew  EnglisJi,  I,  p.  432. 
'English  Grammar,  p.  116. 


36  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


S.  THEN 


Then  is  the  strongest  of  the  group. 

Kellner^  treats  it  as  an  adjective,  quoting  passages  from 
Byron  and  Dickens.  Krapp  -  recognizes  it,  quoting  Charles 
Dickens.  A.  S.  Hill,^  who  is  generally  rather  strict,  recog- 
nizes it.  Matzner  puts  it  among  his  adverbs  used  as  adjectives, 
citing  passages  from  Buhver  and  Byron.  Baskervill  and 
Sewell  *  treat  it  in  the  same  way,  quoting  Ruskin  and  Trollope. 
The  Standard  recognizes  it  as  an  adjective.  Webster's  Inter- 
national says:  "Then  is  often  used  elliptically  like  an  adjec- 
tive for  iken  existing;  as,  'the  then  administration.'  "  Nesfield 
takes  essentially  the  same  view,  saying,  "  'The  then  king '= 
the  then  existing  king."  The  Century  Dictionary  says  that 
it  is  an  ellipsis  for  "then  being,"  quoting  passages  from 
Burke  and  Lamb.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it, 
quoting  from  Leslie  Stephen  and  several  minor  writers. 

However  these  scholars  and  dictionaries  may  explain  its 
meaning,  the  locution  is  pretty  strong  in  the  literature  and 
in  polite  society.    The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases : 

Ben  Jonson   1      Southey    1 

Dr.   Johnson    1       Dickens     ." 1 

Boswell     1      Poe     2 

Sharon  Turner 2      Kingsley     2 

Burke    5      Tennyson    1 

Lamb    4      Aubrey  de  A''ere 1 

De  Quincey   1      Sir   Henry  Taylor 1 

Franklin     2      Huxley    1 

Coleridge    2      Stevenson     1 

The  table  shows  a  continuous  use  of  this  locution  in  England 
for  three  centuries  but  little  popularity  in  America.  Are  the 
Americans  more  " schoolmastered "  than  the  English?  Or  are 
the  English  more  influenced  by  Greek  than  are  the  Americans  ? 

1  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax,  p.  26S. 
''Modern  English,  p.  P.OS. 

^ Beginninps  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  290. 
*  English  Grammar,  p.  116. 

art  I  t- 


ADVEEBS  USED  AS  ADJECTIVES  37 

This  then  is  concise  and  convenient ;  it  saves  time  and  econo- 
mizes labor  for  the  speaker.  It  is  often  usefully  non-commit- 
tal, e.g.,  "The  then  president" — whose  name  I  either  do  not 
remember  or  do  not  care  to  mention. 

Who  has  not  used  this  word  in  the  hurry  of  speech  ? 

Burke,  whose  figures  are  the  largest  in  the  table,  says,  "It 
was  the  letter  of  the  noble  lord  upon  the  floor,  and  of  all  the 
king's  then  ministers,"  and  "it  was  my  fortune,  unknowing 
and  unknown  to  the  then  ministry."  (Conciliation  with 
America.)  Lamb  in  Barbara  S —  says,  "whereat  sat  the  then 
Treasurer  of  (what  few  of  our  readers  may  remember)  the 
Old  Bath  Theater,"  and  "copied  out  in  the  rudest  hand  of 
the  then  prompter."  Poe  (The  Case  of  M.  Valdemar)  says, 
"make  the  experiment  of  mesmerizing  him  in  his  then  condi- 
tion." De  Quincey  (Autohiographical  Sketches)  says,  "All 
the  world  has  heard  that  he  was  passionately  devoted  to  the 
beautiful  sister  of  the  then  Duke  of  Richmond."  Stevenson 
in  Merry  Men  says,  "I  began  to  think  of  my  then  quest  as  of 
something  sacrilegious  in  its  nature." 

This  use  of  then,  we  see,  is  pretty  strong  in  the  literature 
down  to  the  present ;  it  cannot  be  called  archaic.  Nor  can  it, 
with  such  names  behind  it,  be  called  vulgar.  It  has  a  better 
raison  d'etre  than  often,  after,  and  others,  for  which  the  lan- 
guage furnishes  adjectives  exactly  equivalent  in  meaning :  then 
takes  the  place  of  a  rather  long  group  of  words  such  as  ' '  who 
was  then  Duke  of  Richmond,"  "the  quest  on  which  I  was  then 
engaged,"  etc. 

9.  UNDER 

Under  is  treated  as  an  adjective  by  Webster,  the  Standard, 
Century,  and  the  Encyclopedic  dictionaries,  and  by  Baskervill 
and  Sewell,^  the  last-named  quoting  passages  from  Emerson 
and  Ruskin. 

The  writer  has  seen  it  in  Thackeray:  the   under  hoy,  the 

1  English  Grammar,  p.  114. 


38  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

under  hoys;  also  in  Kingsley.  It  is  used  by  Bnlwer:  an  under 
taste,  the  under  hutler  (twice).  The  Reverend  Dr.  C.  Geikie 
uses  it  in  his  Life  of  Christ;  Poe,  in  his  Tales;  Sir  Henry 
Taylor,  in  his  Autobiography. 

The  dictionaries  give  a  large  number  of  nouns  like  under- 
current and  underking,  which  prove  that  under  has  always 
had  adjectival  value. 

Kingsley  in  Here  ward  says,  "with  under  copse  of  holly 
and  hazel."  Bulwer  in  Pclham  says,  "The  under  butler 
appeared'';  "The  under  butler  looked  at  him,"  "The  under 
dog"  is  very  familiar. 


The  foregoing  facts  and  statistics  make  a  strong  case  for  the 
adjectival  use  of  the  words  under  discussion.  While  some  of 
them  have  little  vitality  in  recent  literature,  others  are  used 
considerably.  As  usual,  the  professors  of  rhetoric  are  more 
timid  than  either  the  linguistic  scholars  or  the  reputable 
authors. 

Above  and  then  are  the  most  useful  and  "labor-saving"  of 
the  group ;  why  will  the  purists  compel  us  to  use  more  words 
than  we  need  to  express  our  thoughts? 

\^ 

V 

AFTER  FOE  AFTERWARDS 

After,  as  an  adverb,  is  used  in  England  both  in  polite  speech 
and  in  literature,  but  is  rare  in  America.  Al)bott  ^  notices  it, 
quoting  Shakespeare, 

if  you  know 
That  I  do  fawn  on  men,  and  hug  them  hard, 
And  after  scandal  them. 

Abbott  adds,  "Now  we  use  afterwards  in  this  sense,  using 
after  rarely  as  an  adverb  and  only  with  verbs  of  motion,  to 

*  Shakespearian  Grammar,  p.  36. 


ATHLETICS— SINGULAE   OB   FLVBAL?  39 

signify  an  interval  of  space,  as  'he  followed  after.'  "  The 
writer  has  seen  two  eases  in  Shakespeare. 

The  use  of  after  for  afterwards  runs  through  the  literature 
for  centuries.  It  occurs  frequently  in  Piers  Plowman;  is 
found  in  Shakespeare,  the  Bible,  the  Prayer  Book,  Lodge, 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Massinger,  Milton,  Lamb,  Kingsley, 
Tennj'son,  Browning,  and  Justin  McCarthy.  It  is  very  rare 
in  American  authors,  the  only  case  seen  by  the  writer  being  in 
Professor  L.  A.  Sherman's  Analytics  of  Literature:  "What 
race  besides  ever  so  buried  a  king,  or  after  told  the  story  so 
sublimely  ? ' ' 

This  use  of  after  is  recognized  by  Webster,  quoting  the 
Bible ;  by  the  Century,  quoting  Shakespeare  and  the  Bible ; 
by  the  Encyclopedic  Dictionary,  quoting  the  Bible  and  Shake- 
speare ;  and  by  tlie  New  English  Dictionary',  quoting  several 
authors. 

]\Iost  of  the  dictionaries  would  lead  one  to  infer  that  this 
use  of  after  is  not  found  in  recent  authors. 


VI 

ATHLETICS— SINGULAR  OR  PLURAL? 

Is  athletics  singular  or  plural?  A.  S.  liilP  says,  "More 
frequently  plural  than  singular, ' '  quoting  a  sentence  involving 
the  plural.  Carpenter-  sa5'S,  "Regularly  treated  as  plural." 
The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Used  in  the  plural  on  the 
analogy  of  mathematics,"  etc. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  about  twelve  times  in  academic 
essays  by  Woodrow  Wilson,  A.  C.  Benson,  Arlo  Bates,  and 
J.  H.  Canfield,  all  prominent  in  university  circles.  These 
scholar  regularly  use  the  plural  except  occasionally  when  a 
predicate  noun  in  the  singular  leads  the  writer  to  prefer  the 

''■Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  59. 
^Principles  of  English  Grammar,  p.  59. 


40  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

singular  verb;  e.g.,  Athletics  is  exhilarating  sport.  It  would 
seem  that  the  plural  is  almost  universal  in  academic  circles. 

Professor  Arlo  Bates ^  says,  ''where  athletics  are  carried  so 
much  farther. ' '  And  ' '  The  feature  which  most  markedly  dis- 
tinguishes modern  athletics  from  those  of  the  days  of  our 
fathers,"  etc. 

Benson  in  his  use  of  the  plural  probably  represents  the 
English  university  usage. 

VII 

AT  LENGTH  =  AT  LAST 

Genung-  condemned  at  length  (=at  last)  in  1893  but  later 
withdrew  his  opposition.  The  Century  recognizes  it.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it  and  quotes  Dryden. 
Webster  recognizes  it.  Lounsbury^  defends  the  locution. 
Though  he  does  not  cite  any  passages,  he  says,  "No  one  who 
has  made  any  study  of  the  practice  of  the  great  writers  in  this 
particular  can  have  failed  to  note  that  at  length  is  employed 
by  them  five  times  in  the  sense  of  denoting  the  end  of  a  period, 
where  it  is  used  once  in  denoting  the  full  extent  of  anything. 
Either  usage  is  of  course  correct."  The  opposition  to  the 
phrase  was  directed  toward  its  use  in  the  sense  of  "at  last," 
denoting  the  end  of  a  period,  i.e.,  "finally." 

No  doubt  there  are  some  besides  Genung  prejudiced  against 
this  phrase ;  for,  judging  by  himself,  the  writer  does  not  doubt 
that  Genung 's  textbooks  have  influenced  many  people.  The 
phrase  in  question  is  used  by  the  following  authorities : 

Latimer    3  Samuel  Daniel 1 

Shakespeare     1  Marlowe   1 

Massinger    1  Bainabe  Barnes  1 

Sidney    2  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.' 2 

Ben    Jonson    2  Milton     2 

1  T7(e  Negative  l^idc  of  Modern  Athletics. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  edition  of  1S93,  p.  304, 

'  T/ie  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  1G5,  166. 


AT  LENGTH  =  AT  LAST 


41 


Baxter    1 

Dryden    8 

Swift    3 

Steele     3 

Addison     13 

Pope   3 

Prior     3 

George  Campbell    1 

Goldsmith V2 

Dr.   Johnson    2 

David   Hume    1 

Thos.  Warton    1 

K.  B.  Sheridan 1 

Fielding -J  1 

Gibbon     24 

John    Newton 1 

Jefferson    4 

Franklin 21 

Sharon  Turner   1 

Wordsworth     11 

Thos.    Campbell    1 

Cowper    3 

Keats    2 

Southey    3 

Lamb    7 

De  Quincey    2 

Scott 2 

Hallam   7 

Dickens     15 

Carlyle     13 

Poe   73 


Mrs.   Gaskell    7 

Bulwer    7 

Thos.  Hughes   2 

Macaulay   98 

Adelaide  Procter    2 

Newman   3 

Hawthorne 6 

D.  G.  Eossetti  1 

Mrs.  Anna   Jameson 1 

Browning     1 

F.  W.  Faber   1 

Grote     17 

Phoebe   Cary    1 

Dean  Trench  3 

C.  G.  Eossetti   1 

Thackeray    4 

Parkman    1 

Holmes     1 

Tennyson     6 

Huxley    4 

J.  A.  Froude 1 

John  Earle    14 

G.  W.  Cable 18 

Edward   Dowden    1 

Longfellow     14 

E.    L.    Stevenson 17 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 1 

John  Fiske   8 

W.   D.  Whitney 4 

Stephen    Phillips    1 

Ernest  Ehys    1 


Here  are  72  "reputable  authors"  that  use  this  phrase.  It 
is  pretty  strong  iu  Addison,  Fielding,  Goldsmith,  Dickens, 
Carlyle,  Stevenson,  and  John  Earle,  and  very  strong  in  Poe, 
Gibbon,  and  Macaulay;  it  is  one  of  IMacaulay's  everyday 
expressions.  If  necessary,  many  more  authors  and  hundreds 
of  additional  passages  could  be  cited.  If  great  names  carry 
weight,  the  case  of  at  length  is  settled  in  the  affirmative.  It 
is  very  common  in  polite  speech. 


42  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

To  quote  a  few  of  the  sentences  in  which  this  phrase  occurs : 

And  long  we  gazed,  but  satiated  at  length 

Came  to  the  ruins.      (Tennyson:  Princess,  Prol.,  11.  90  ft'.) 

At  length  I  saw  a  lady  within  call, 

Stiller   than   chisell'd  marble.      (Tennyson:     Dream   of  Fair 
Women,  11.  86  ff.) 

at  length 
The    expected    letter    from    their    kinsman    came.     (Wordsworth : 
Michael,  11.  306  ff.) 

The  ministers  at  length  flattered  themselves  that  Harley  's  resolu- 
tion might  be  rescinded.  (Macaulay:  Hist,  of  Eng.,  V,  chap, 
xxiii.) 

VIII 

BEAT  FOTx  DEFEAT 

The  first  edition  of  Genung's  Outlines  of  Rhetoric'^  warned 
the  student  not  to  say  heat,  but  to  say  "defeat";  as,  "Har- 
vard defeated  Yale  in  football."  Though  Genung  changed 
this  in  a  later  edition,  his  first  edition  has  no  doubt  influenced 
many  students  and  teachers. 

Beat  is  recognized  by  the  Standard,  Worcester's,  Webster's, 
the  Encyclopedic,  and  the  Century  dictionaries,  with  passages 
from  Shakespeare,  Arbuthnot,  Prescott,  and  Matthew  Arnold. 
The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  quotations 
from  Caxton,  the  King  James  Bible,  Malory,  Pepys,  Steele, 
Burke,  Southey,  Edgeworth,  Byron,  Hallam,  Freeman,  and 
Lowell. 

The  word  occurs  in  the  following : 

Latimer    1  Franklin    1 

King    James    Bible 3  Grote     1 

Shakespeare     5  Mrs.   Gaskell    1 

Paston  Letters   ]  E.  A.  Foe ". 2 

Addison    2  Macaulay   9 

Dryden     1  Ruskin     1 

1  Edition  of  1893,  pp.  304,  305. 


BETWEEN  EACH   (OB  EVERT)  43 

Thos.  Hughes   2  Grant  Allen 1 

Freeman     12  H.N.  Hudson 1 

Holmes    1  Carlyle    1 

Kingsley    4  Price  Collier   1 

Bulwer 1  Bret  Harte   2 

The  writer  has  not  seen  defeat  in  the  literature  to  any  great 
extent,  though  no  one  would  deny  that  it  would  be  proper.  In 
polite  colloquial  usage,  beat  is  the  usual  word. 

Macaulay  says,  "on  which,  right  or  wrong,  he  was  sure  to 
be  beaten,  and  on  which  he  could  not  be  beaten  without  being 
degraded."  The  Bible  (Josh.  8,  15)  says,  "And  Joshua  and 
all  Israel  made  as  if  they  were  beaten  before  them,  and  fled  by 
the  way  of  the  wilderness."  Freeman  (Old  English  History) 
says,  "Theodosius,  .  .  .  who  was  a  wise  and  brave  man,  and 
who  beat  both  the  Scots  and  the  Saxons." 

Freeman,  as  the  table  indicates,  is  very  partial  to  this  verb. 


IX 

BETWEEN  EACH  {OK  EVERY) 

A  "common  error"  with  persons  of  considerable  intelli- 
gence is  to  say  between  each  for  every)  +  the  noun;  e.g., 
between  each  step.  This  might  seem  to  be  illiterate ;  but  it  is 
found  pretty  often  in  the  best  authors.  The  writer  has  seen 
the  following  cases : 


Shakespeare     .  . 
Jeremy    Taylor 

Pope     

Fielding    

Goldsmith     .  .  .  . 
William  Collins 


Coleridge    1 

Scott     1 

Motley    1 

Dickens     2 

George    Eliot    4 

P.  H.  Havne 1 


Scott  says,  "Between  every  pause."  Motley  says,  "Between 
each  step."  The  writer  does  not  remember  seeing  bet  ween 
every  two  steps,  between  every  two  pauses,  etc.,  in  any  great 


44  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

author.  George  Eliot  says,  "Between  each  item",  "between 
every  section,"  and  in  Adam  Bede,  "pausing  hetiveen  every 
sentence  to  rap  the  floor"  .  .  .  "said  Mr.  Peyser,  turning 
his  head  on  one  side  in  a  dubitative  manner,  and  giving  a  pre- 
cautionary puff  to  his  pipe  hetiveen  each  sentence.^'' 

The  writer  is  not  recommending  tliis  locution  but  showing 
that  it  is  not  an  unauthorized  vulgarism. 


BUT  +  NOMINATIVE' 

Whence  all  but  Ire  had  fled.      (Mrs.  Hemans:  Casablanca.) 

Can  a  preposition  take  the  nominative?  Or  is  this  hut  a 
conjunction  ?  This  is  the  point  on  which  the  grammarians  dif- 
fer ;  but  the  fact  remains  that  sentences  like  that  quoted  above 
are  found  all  through  English  literature.  In  the  Anglo-Saxon 
gospels  this  construction  is  very  common.  It  comes  through 
Chaucer,  Thomas  Malory,  the  Miracle  Plays,  and  Shakespeare, 
without  a  break  to  the  present. 

As  to  whether  this  hut  is  a  preposition  or  a  conjunction,  the 
grammarians  differ.  Matzner^  regards  it  as  a  preposition 
passed  into  a  conjunction.  Nesfield^  treats  it  as  a  confusion 
between  conjunction  and  preposition.  Abbott  *  takes  the  same 
view,  and  says,  "probably  owing  to  confusion  between  the 
prepositional  and  the  conjunctive  usage,  hut,  even  when  a 
preposition,  is  often  followed  by  the  subjective  form."  Bas- 
kervill  and  Sewell  ^  treat  it  as  a  preposition;  Carpenter,  as  a 
conjunction.     Kellner*'  prefers  to  parse  it  as  a  conjunction. 

The  grammarians  named  above  cite  passages  from  the  fol- 

^  For  sfliT  +  nominative  see  p.  251  below. 

-  Enffiifth  Grammar  (Grece's  translation).  TI,  407. 

^  Enfjlisli  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  197. 

*  Tloto  to  Parse,  p.  222. 

^Eiif/Jish  Grammar,  pp.  283,  284. 

^Historical  Outlines  of  English  f^yntar,  pp.  130,  131. 


BVT  +  NOMINA  TI VE  45 

lowing  authorities:  Anglo-Saxon  Bible,  Towneley  IMysteries, 
Caxton,  Shakespeare,  Samuel  Butler,  Emerson,  Kingsley, 
Southey,  William  Taylor,  and  Mrs,  Hemans.  The  New  Eng- 
lish Dictionary  under  hut  says,  "The  colloquial  use  of  'me,' 
'us,'  for  'I,'  'we,'  etc.,  as  complemental  nominatives  in  the 
pronouns,  making  it  uncertain  whether  'but'  is  to  be  taken  as 
governing  a  case.  ...  In  colloquial  use  the  objective  forms 
are  more  common  than  '  I, '  etc. ;  in  literary  use  the  point  is 
usually  avoided  by  some  change  of  phraseology."  Kellner^ 
cites  parallel  passages  from  Lessing  and  Luther  showing  a 
like  development  in  German. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases  in  English  and 
American  literature : 

Lord  Berners    1      Cowper    1 

Malory    6       De  Quincey   1 

Chaucer     3       Jean  Ingelow    1 

Occleve    1       Swinburne    3 

Bible    3       D.  G.  Eossetti 6 

Marlowe    7       Mrs.   H.   War.l 1 

Shakespeare 15      Lowell     1 

Miltcn     1       William  Morris 2 

Dry  den   .  .  .  ., 1       Browning    4 

Pope    . 1       Bryant    1 

Prior     1      Bayard  Taylor 3 

Addison    1       Mrs.   Hemans    1 

Boswell     1       Dickens    2 

Philip    Freneau    2       Xewmaii 1 

Hazlitt   1 

But  I,  hut  he,  hut  she,  hut  they,  hut  we  seem  to  be  pretty 
evenly  distributed. 

To  the  average  mind,  even  the  educated  mind,  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  accept  the  dictum  that  a  preposition  can  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  nominative  case ;  yet  some  of  the  best  grammari- 
ans take  this  view.     For  instance,   Baskervill   and   Sewell^ 

^Historical  Oullincs  of  EngU^h  t^yntajc,  p.  2G9. 
^  EtKjUsh  Gramma) ,  p.  277. 


46  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

say,  "In  the  sentence,  'None  remained  but  lie,'  grammatical 
rules  M'ould  require  him  instead  of  'he'  after  tlie  preposition; 
yet  the  expression  is  sustained  by  good  authority."  Kellner, 
on  the  other  hand,  treats  it  as  a  conjunction  in  an  elliptical 
construction,  e.g.,  "None  remained  but  he"  (remained). 
Others  explain  it  in  the  same  manner. 

In  parsing  the  &ifi  + nominative  \ve  are  between  the  two 
horns  of  a  dilemma.  While,  as  already  said,  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive  of  a  preposition's  taking  any  but  an  oblique  ease,  we 
have  a  few  parallel  cases,  e.g.,  from  Luther's  Bible  and 
Lessing,  both  cited  b}'  Kellner.  To  treat  hut  as  a  conjunction 
often  involves  an  absurdity;  e.g.,  "Whence  all  had  fled  but  he 
had  not  fled."  This  is  an  ellipsis  beyond  tlie  average  compre- 
hension, and  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  sentence 
ever  had  a  place  in  the  language.  Some  such  locutions  Abbott 
labels  as  due  to  confusion  between  two  constructions,  not 
attempting  to  parse  them.  Proliably  this  is  the  best  way  out 
of  this  dilemma.  While  the  grammarians  are  not  able  to  solve 
the  question  of  syntax,  and  though  but  +  objective  is  more 
usual  than  hut  +  nominative,  we  have  nevertheless  good  au- 
thority for  using  h^it  with  a  nominative  pronoun.^ 

In  addition  to  the  sentence  quoted  from  Mrs.  Hemans,  we 
will  quote  passages  from  authors  of  even  greater  fame : 
"Within  his  own  circle  none  durst  tread  but  he."  (De  Quincey : 
Lake  Poets,  essay  on  Coleridge)  ;  "that  being  a  vice  which 
I  think  none  but  he  wiio  knows  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts 
should  pretend  to  discover  in  another,"  etc.  (Addison:  Spec- 
tator); "when  the  storm  mounted  overhead  and  broke  upon 
the  earth,  it  w^as  those  scorned  and  detested  Galileans,  and 
none  but  they,  the  men-haters  and  God-despisers,  who  .  .  ." 
(Newman:  Essays.) 


CALCULATED  +  THE  INFINITIVE  47 


XI 

CALCULATED  +  THE  INFINITIVE 
Whatever  is  caJenlaUd  to  aflPect  the  imagination.      (Burle.) 

Calculated  +  t\\e  infinitive,  as  in  the  quotation  from  Edmund 
Burke,  was  an  abomination  to  Richard  Grant  White. ^  He 
found  in  the  dictionary  that  etymologically  calculate  means 
to  "compute,  reckon,  work  out  by  figures,''  from  calculus, 
a  bean,  used,  in  ancient  times,  for  counting.  So  that,  beguiled 
by  "the  devil  of  derivation,"  spoken  of  by  one  of  our  great 
scholars,  he  argued  that  we  must  not  say  ^'calculated  to  do 
liarm"  except  where  the  thing  was  done  intentionally.  A 
more  recent  writer  on  usage,  Professor  J.  F.  Genung,-  adopts 
the  same  idea.  Genung  says:  "Not  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of 
liable,  likely,  apt.  .  .  .  With  the  word  is  associated  the  idea 
of  intent,  and  it  should  be  used  only  in  eases  where  this  idea 
is  present."  The  Century  Dictionary  takes  practically  the 
same  position.  The  Hart  textbook  on  rhetoric,  written  by 
the  elder  Hart  and  revised  by  his  son,  J.  M.  Hart,  condemns 
calculated  +  the  infinitive.  Quackenbos^  puts  it  in  the  class 
that  he  calls  "malaprops,"  his  word  for  improprieties  in 
speech.  White,  in  his  attack  upon  the  word,  admitted  that  it 
was  used  by  Goldsmith ;  for  numerous  other  authors  that  use 
it,  see  the  table  below. 

Calculated  +  the  infinitive  is  recognized  by  Webster,  with 
quotations  from  Goldsmith  and  Hawthorne ;  also,  by  the  New 
English  Dictionary,  quoting  Defoe,  Southey,  Gladstone,  and 
two  or  three  minor  writers. 


1  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  96,  97. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  306. 
^Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  p.  152. 


48 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Thus  far  the  antliorities  seem,  on  tlie  whole,  mifavorable : 
six  con's  and  two  pro's.  Let  us  turn  to  the  literature  and  see 
what  reputable  authors  use  it. 


Addison    1 

Sheridan     1 

Joseph   Priestley    1 

George  Campbell    2 

Coleridge     7 

Gibbon    1 

Grote 1 

Irving 4 

John  Adams    1 

Dr.  Johnson 1 

Boswell 1 

Swift    1 

Defoe    1 

Dr.  H.  Blair 7 

Thomas  Warton    3 

Goldsmith 2 

Thomas  Paine 2 

Burke   1 

Hazlitt    1 

Lamb    3 

De  Quincey   ] 

Jane  Austen    2 

Jefferson    1 

Seott 2 

Mrs.  Gaskell    1 

Beaconsfield     2 

Trench    1 

Dickens     3 

Prescott    1 

Carlyle    1 

Macaulay    2 

Charlotte  Bronte 4 


Hallam    5 

Century  Dictionary   1 

Euskin    2 

Fitzedward  Hall 1 

Motley    1 

Poe   6 

Bulwer     2 

Justin  McCarthy    2 

Dean  Alford   1 

Holmes    1 

Milman    3 

Horace  Greeley 1 

W.  D.  Whitney   1 

Mrs.  Anna  Jameson 4 

George  Eliot 1 

Minto     1 

Douce    1 

John   Fiske    2 

Stanley     1 

W.  W.  Skeat 1 

Matthew  Arnold  1 

Gladstone    2 

Huxley    2 

Katharine  Lee  Bates 1 

Sidney  Lee    1 

Mrs.  H.  Ward 1 

Saintsbury    1 

John  Lubbock    1 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

Sir  Henry  Taylor    3 

Hawthorne 1 

James  Bryce   1 


Here  we  have  64  authors  in  over  100  passages.  Some  of 
these  authors  are  eminent  writers  on  rhetoric ;  others  are  great 
stylists  such  as  Burke,  Arnold,  and  Macaulay. 

White's  denunciation  of  calcnlaied  terrified  the  present 
writer  in  days  gone  hy ;  no  doubt  the  new  editions  of  his  books 


CAN  AS  AN  INDEPENDENT  VERB  49 

on  usage  are  read  by  many  people  anxious  to  get  daylight  in 
matters  of  usage.  While  holding  no  brief  for  calculated +  t\\Q 
infinitive,  the  writer  feels  that  it  is  a  very  useful  word  and 
one  that  has  been  in  good  standing  for  at  least  two  centuries. 
It  has  Avide  vogue  in  polite  society  and  among  reputable 
speakers.  The  dictionaries  cited  above  and  about  sixty-tive 
reputable  authors  would  seem  to  establish  the  word  as  good 
English. 

In  addition  to  the  passage  from  Burke  already  quoted,  a 
few  sentences  from  standard  authors  may  be  added.  Gibbon 
says,  "The  grave  simplicity  of  the  philosopher  was  ill  calcu- 
lated to  engage  her  wanton  levity."  Motley  says,  "previous 
statutes,  which  were,  however,  not  calculated  to  make  men 
oblivious."  Matthew  Arnold  writes,  "It  seems  calculated  to 
be  of  more  use."  Ruskin  says,  "it  .  .  .  presents  this  group 
to  the  spectator  in  the  form  best  calculated  to  enable  him  to 
grasp  it  also,  and  to  grasp  it  with  delight." 


XII 

CAN  AS  AX  INDEPENDENT  VERB 

No  doubt  most  of  us  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  can  some- 
times holds  on  to  its  independent,  or  notional,  meaning,  so 
accustomed  are  we  to  its  use  as  an  auxiliary. 

We  are  now  treating  can  in  the  sense  of  knoiv,  understand, 
know  how  to  do,  he  able,  followed  by  an  object.  This  use  is 
recognized  by  the  Century,  with  illustrative  passages  from 
older  authors  such  as  Chaucer,  Shakespeare,  Spenser,  Ben 
Jonson,  and  Fletcher.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  quoting  Milton  and  Pope.  The  writer  can  add  the 
following:  Milton  (2)  ;  Matthew  Arnold  (1)  ;  Browning  (1)  ; 
Rossetti  (1)  ;  Richard  Crashaw  (1)  ;  Emerson  (1). 

Of  course,  these  are  but  sporadic  survivals  and  are  all 
found  in  poetry. 


50  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

A  few  passages  may  be  added  for  the  benefit  of  any  who 
might  care  to  risk  the  locution.     Browning  says. 

But  here  is  the  finger  of  God,  a  flash  of  the  will  that  can. 
Rossetti  says, 

•  She  sobbed,  "for  we  can  no  more!  " 

Matthew  Arnold  says, 

Which  has  not  tanght  weak  wills  how  much  they  can? 

In  the  older  periods,  this  use  of  can  was  quite  common  ; 
the  following  passage  from  Chaucer  is  one  of  many: 

For  in  the  lend  ther  nas  no  crafty  man, 
That  geometric  or  ars  metrik  can. 

This  article  is  merely  a  contribution  to  lexicography :  the 
locution  is  not  a  disputed  one  but  rare  and  interesting. 

XIII 

CATCH  A  POST    (TRAIN,  BOAT,  ETC.) 

Richard  Grant  White  ^  and  Genung,"  the  latter  in  1893,  con- 
demned this  locution,  but  Genung  afterwards  withdrew  his 
objection.  It  is  recognized  by  Webster,  the  Century,  the  New 
English,  the  Standard,  and  the  Encyclopedic  dictionaries, 
most  of  them  using  the  phrases  at  the  head  of  this  section. 

"To  reach,  to  arrive  at,"  is  an  old  meaning  of  catch,  and  is 
found  in  English  literature  for  many  centuries.  White  argued 
that  we  could  catch  a  person  on  the  train  or  catch  scarlet  fever 
from  some  person  who  had  been  in  the  train,  but  could  not 
catch  the  train.  He  overlooked  one  of  the  old  meanings  of  the 
word  and  thought  of  only  one  meaning. 

Polite  usage  favors  the  locution.  The  scholars  first  named 
are  in  the  minority. 

1  Words  and  Their  Uses,  p.  99. 

'^  Outlines  of  Rhetoric.  ISG.*?,  p.  HOG. 


CATCEED  FOE  CAUGHT  51 

XIV 

CATCHED  FOI!  CAUGHT 

Lounsbury^  says,  "During  the  whole  period  of  modern 
English  catchcd  and  t cached,  which  g(^  back  to  the  Old  English 
period,  have  maintained  themselves  alongside  of  caught  and 
taught,  though  the  present  tendency  is  to  regard  them  as 
improper. ' ' 

The  Century  Dictionary  says  they  are  vulgar  or  obsolete. 
Webster  recognizes  them  as  secondary  Init  rarely  used  forms. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  following  eases:  Shakespeare  (1)  ; 
Lyly  (1)  ;  Butler  (1)  ;  Defoe  (1)  ;  Congreve  (1)  ;  Boswell 
(4);  Dr.  Johnson  (1);  Lamb  (1);  Dr.  H.  Blair  (2).  Dr. 
Johnson  defended  catchcd  and  used  it  himself.  Horace  Wal- 
pole  used  it.  Fitzedward  Hall  in  1873  called  it  "vulgar  and 
ignorant."  Lamb  is  the  most  recent  author  in  whose  books 
catchcd  was  seen,  and  he  is  somewhat  old-fashioned  in  his 
grammar,  as  will  be  seen  in  several  sections  of  this  treatise. 
In  a  letter  dated  December  27,  1800,  Lamb  says,  "Then  he 
caught  at  a  proof-sheet,  and  catched  up  a  laundress's  bill 
instead."  This  may  be  humor.  Webster  is  undoubtedly  cor- 
rect in  saying  "rare."  The  writer  has  found  so  few  modern 
writers  using  catchcd,  and  hears  it  so  often  in  the  mouths  of 
the  illiterate,  that  he  cannot  accept  Lounsbury's  statement 
that  catched  has  maintained  itself  through  the  whole  period 
of  modern  English  unless  he  will  say  "sporadically,"  or  "as 
a  \^ilgarism."  Butler's  one  case  is  a  participle;  the  others, 
mostly  preterites. 

^Histonj  of  the  Eiigliuli  Lunguncjc,  p.  385. 


52  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

XV 

COLLECT  A  BILL 

Genuiig^  condemned  the  phrase  collect  a  hill  in  1893  but 
afterwards  withdrew  his  objection.  Others,  however,  possibly 
influenced  by  him,  are  still  fighting  the  locution,  arguing  that 
one  can  collect  the  money  but  not  the  bill. 

The  Century,  Standard,  and  Webster  recognize  the  phrase. 

Polite  usage  accepts  the  locution ;  how  else  shall  we  express 
the  idea  ? 


XVI 


COMMENCE  +  THE  INFINITIVE 

Genung^  condemns  (but  mildly)  the  use  of  commence  fol- 
lowed by  the  infinitive,  as  "He  commenced  to  play."  He 
thinks  "begin"  is  better  with  the  infinitive;  commence,  with 
the  form  in  -ing;  e.g.,  "He  commenced  playing,"  but  "He 
began  to  play."  The  Century  takes  the  same  view.  Webster 
says  that  gOod  writers  prefer  the  verbal  noun  after  commence. 
George  P.  Marsh,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  English  Language, 
takes  the  same  view  but  says  that  there  is  no  valid  grammatical 
objection  to  the  infinitive  after  commence. 

The  phrases  commence  patriot,  commence  author,  etc., 
though  condemned  severely  by  White,  have  been  used  in 
England  by  such  writers  as  Junius,  I.  D '  Israeli,  and  Fitzed- 
ward  Hall,  and  the  phrases  to  commence  M.  A.,  etc.,  have  been 
recognized  for  at  least  three  centuries  in  England.  They  are 
not  found  to  any  extent  in  American  literature. 

1  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1893,  ix  307. 
'i  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  307. 


CON  COED  OF  VEBB  AND  SUBJECT  53 

XVII 
CONCOED  OF  YEEB  AND  SUBJECT 

"A  verb  must  agree  with  its  subject  in  number  and  person" 
is  an  old  rule  of  grammar  that  we  have  all  learned  at  school. 
In  our  young  days  we  never  dreamed  that  this  rule  ever  ad- 
mitted an  exception.  No  teacher,  no  grammar,  ever  suggested 
such  a  possibility.  In  recent  years,  however,  we  read  in  pro- 
gressive textbooks  that  a  verb  may  decline  to  agree  with  its 
subject.  We  are  told  that  a  group  of  subjects  may  be  con- 
ceived as  a  unit  and  take  a  verb  in  the  singular.  In  one  stand- 
ard grammar  for  high  schools  ^  we  are  told,  ' '  It  will  not  do  to 
state  as  a  general  rule  that  the  verb  agrees  with  its  subject  in 
person  and  number. ' ' 

In  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  we  see  plural  subjects  taking 
the  singular  verb.  Groups  of  cases  are  given  by  March  and  by 
Matzner  in  their  grammars;  the  writer  has  recorded  four 
unmistakable  cases  in  Beowulf.  These  Anglo-Saxon  sentences 
cannot  be  represented  in  modern  English  on  account  of  the 
loss  of  inflections.  But  they  are  real  incongruences  just  as 
if  we  should  say,  "Two  men  goes  to  the  city;"  "James  and 
John  sees  the  sights."  They  are  rare  but  prove  that  the  rule 
was  not  absolutely  rigid. 

Those  who  have  studied  Greek  wull  remember  the  neuter 
plural  subject :  if  a  noun  is  neuter,  its  nominative  plural  takes 
a  singular  verb.  However  scholars  may  explain  this,  it  proves 
that  the  Greek  language  did  not  require  every  plural  subject 
to  have  a  plural  verb.  The  Anglo-Saxon  language,  also, 
allowed  this  occasionally :  the  writer  has  recorded  one  case  in 
King  Alfred's  Orosius  and  one  in  the  poetry  of  Caedmon, 
though  editors,  not  knowing  of  the  neuter  plural  and  singular 
verb,  have  emended  this  last  word  into  a  plural.    Kiihuer,  in 

1  Baskervill  and  Sewell,  p.  312. 


54  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

liis  Greek  Grammar/  tells  us  that,  occasionally  in  poetry  and 
very  rarely  in  prose,  masculine  and  feminine  plural  subjects 
take  the  verb  in  the  singular. 

Jespersen-  tells  us  that  the  spoken  language  of  Denmark 
discarded  concord  in  verbs  three  hundred  years  ago  and  the 
written  language  more  recently,  so  that  the  verb  no  longer 
carries  a  sign  of  person  and  number.  Bradley,  the  English 
lexicographer,  intimates  that  English  may  some  day  do  the 
same  thing;  e.g.,  He  go,  she  go,  etc.  That  is,  the  pronoun 
alone  will  show  person  and  number.  Jespersen  would  no 
doubt  place  this  under  "progress  in  language";  but  the 
purists  would  say  that  the  English  language  was  going  to 
perdition. 

In  Chaucer's  Squire's  Tale  "  we  read, 

The  spyces  and  the  wyn  (wine)   is  come  anon. 

Skeat*  in  one  of  his  glossaries  says  of  this  is,  "Present 
singular  used  with  two  substantives."  Mandeville  says, 
"there  is  made  large  nets,"  etc.  Malory  says,  ''was  chosen 
.  .  .  the  most  men  of  worship."  These  are  typical  of  numer- 
ous passages  in  Malory,  Latimer,  Marlowe,  Shakespeare,  and 
many  Elizabethan  authors.  The  great  grammarians  all  note 
that  is  and  ivas  are  used  with  plural  subjects  for  many  cen- 
turies, especially  when  they  stand  before  the  subject.  "There 
is  tears  for  his  love";  "here  is  more  of  us";  "fire  and  food 
is  ready,"  are  typical  for  Shakespeare.  "Two  or  three  is 
enough  to  bear  witness";  "so  is  the  pains  of  the  soul"; 
"where  is  locked  up  all  things  necessary,"  etc. ;  "which  doings 
of  the  vicar  icas  damnable";  "ivas  there  not  some,"  etc.? — 
these  are  taken  here  and  there  from  Latimer's  sermons. 
Lounsbury,  however,  regards  this  is  and  icas  in  Elizabethan 
literature  as  plural,  and  to  them  traces  the  illiterate  is  and 

'  §  241. 

-  ProfjrcsN   in   T,ntiiiua<ic,  pp.  ?,2,  33. 

'L.  294. 

*  Prioresses  Tale,  etc.,  Clarcnflon  Pre«s,  s.v.is. 


COXCOUD  OF  VLFB  AXD  SUBJECT  55 

was  in  present-day  English.     Miitzner,  also,  treats  ivas  as  an 
old  plnral  in  you  ivas. 

This  is  and  tvas  come  on  down.  Pepys  says,  ''here  was 
W.  Batelier  and  his  sister,"  etc.  Cowley  says,  ''there  ivas 
wont  to  lie  Spencer's  works."  Hume  writes,  "The  principles 
of  every  passion,  and  of  every  seutiment,  is  in  every  man." 
Mary  Wortley  Montagu  says,  "There  is  few  of  my  acquaint- 
ance I  should  ever  wish  to  see  again."  Charles  Lamb: 
"There  was  only  he  and  Lewis";  "there  is  in  nature,  I  fear, 
too  many  tendencies,"  etc.;  "here  iS  more  of  the  plaguy 
comforts,"  etc.  As  the  foregoing  examples  indicate,  this  con- 
struction is  especially  common  after  "here"  and  "there"  at 
the  head  of  the  sentence.  This  is  paralleled  in  Greek  and  is 
treated  as  impersonal  by  the  grammarians. 

Thackeray  writes,  "There  was  a  hare,  a  rabbit,  some 
pigeons,"  etc.  This  construction  is  sometimes  explained  by 
saying  that,  when  uttering  the  verb,  the  writer  or  speaker  had 
not  conceived  the  subject  clearly  in  his  mind  and  that  conse- 
quently he  used  the  singular  verb  most  naturally.  However 
we  may  explain  these  cases,  the  fact  is  clear  that  the  plural 
subject  does  not  always  require  the  plural  verb  in  standard 
literature:  the  syntax  used  to  be  freer  before  it  %vas 
' '  schoolmastered. ' ' 

Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  quote  sentences  like  those  given 
above  from  Matthew  Arnold,  Burke,  Hawthorne,  and  Scott. 
They  quote  from  Macaulay,  "Then  comes  the  'Why,  sir!' 
and  the  'What  then,  sir?'  and  the  'No,  sir!'  "  putting  comes 
under  the  head  of  "several  subjects  with  a  singular  verb  w^hen 
the  subjects  are  after  the  verb."  Our  present  strict  syntax 
would  lead  us  to  criticize  all  the  sentences  quoted  above  if 
found  in  the  writings  of  an  unknown  author.  Young  says, 
"What  means  these  questions?"  What  schoolmastered  writer 
of  our  day  Avould  risk  that  sentence  ? 

Again  :    ^Malory  writes,  "^Manhood  and  worsliip  {i.e.,  honor) 

'^  En^jllsh  Grammar,  n.  ;;14. 


56  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

is  hyd  within  man's  person" ;  "worship  and  hardynesse  is  not 
in  arayment."  The  King  James  Bible  has  "Light  and  under- 
standing and  excellent  wisdom  is  found  in  thee";  "where 
envjdng  and  strife  is. ' '  j\Iilton  says,  * '  The  weight  cf  all,  and 
our  last  hope,  relics."  Tliaekeray  says,  "In  those  two  gentle- 
men is  the  moral  and  exemplification  of,"  etc.  In  all  these 
sentences,  where  strict  modern  usage  demands  the  plural, 
grammarians  explain  the  singular  verb  by  saying  that  the  two 
or  three  subjects  constitute  a  psychological  unit  and  may 
therefore  have  a  singular  predicate.  Or  relies  in  the  sentence 
from  ]\Iilton  might  agree  in  number  with  Jwpe  as  being  the 
subject  nearest  the  verb  and  uppermost  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer.  In  either  case,  it  helps  to  justify  the  statement  of  the 
greater  grammarians  that  a  plurality  of  subjects  does  not 
always  require  a  plural  predicate.  Kellner^  well  puts  it, 
*  *  Every  plurality  may  be  conceived  as  a  unity. ' '  That  is  good, 
strong  food  for  the  liberal  scholars ;  how  can  the  purists  ever 
swallow  and  digest  it  ? 

This  dictum  of  Kellner's  is  well  illustrated  by  sentences 
that  the  writer  has  recorded  in  his  notes.  John  Knox  says, 
"Both  my  vocation  and  conscience  craves  plainness  of  me." 
Here  the  idea  is  a  unit:  "my  duty  as  a  minister  and  my 
conscience"  may  be  taken  together  as  one  idea.  "We  might, 
however,  treat  craves  as  the  old  Northern  plural  so  common 
in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  and  edited  out  of  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  wherever  possible.  This,  however,  will 
not  apply  to  Thackera}^  's  sentence,  ' '  That  dining  for  a  shilling 
and  strutting  about  Pall  Mall  afterwards  ivas,  after  all,  an 
hypocrisy."  The  plurality  here  can  be  conceived  as  a  unity — 
"that  pretense,  that  deception,  trying  to  hide  your  impecu- 
niousness  by  strutting  around  Pall  Mall  after  eating  a  wretched 
dinner  in  a  cheap  tavern,  tvas  an  hypocrisy."  So  Thackeray 
no  doubt  conceived  it  when  he  wrote  the  sentence,  though  it 

»  See  Historical  Outlines  of  English  *Sf?/«<aj-j  J§  84  ff.,  for  a  thorough  treat- 
ment of  this  subjert. 


CONCOBD  OF  TEEB  AND  SUBJECT  57 

may  be  possible  that  teas  takes  its  number  from  "hypocrisy." 
WordsAvorth  writes:  "But  here  is  perfect  joy  and  pride." 
This  would  bring  down  the  scorn  of  the  puristic  grammarian. 

Numerals,  being  apprehended  as  a  collective  unit,  sometimes 
take  the  singular;  e.g.,  "Seven  masters  is  here  come" — mod- 
ernized from  a  monument  of  a1)out  a.d.  1320. 

We  have  left  Shakespeare  to  the  last.  In  spite  of  the  editors 
of  three  centuries,  there  are  passages  in  Shakespeare's  plays 
that  look  ungrammatical  to  the  readers  of  our  day;  e.g., 
''Banquo  and  his  Fleance  Zavs";  "hanging  and  wiving  goes 
by  destiny" ;  "whose  own  hard  dealings  teaches  them  suspect," 
etc.  So  in  the  sonnets,  the  rhymes  have  saved  many  verbs 
from  being  altered  by  the  editors;  e.g.,  "Both  truth  and 
beauty  on  my  love  depends." 

In  a  note  to  the  teaches  quoted  above,  Richard  Grant  White 
says,  "A  fine  example  of  Shakespeare's  heedlessness  of  gram- 
mar." Some  other  literary  scholars,  commenting  on  some  of 
tliese  two  hundred  or  more  passages  changed  by  editors  say, 
''Singular  verb  with  plural  subject."  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott  and 
other  grammarians,  however,  regard  these  as  old  Northern 
plurals  surviving  down  through  the  Elizaliethan  period.  This 
explains  "Kind  nature  and  custom  gives,"  in  Gorhoduc; 
numerous  passages  in  Latimer ;  at  least  two  hundred  in  unal- 
tered editions  of  Shakespeare,  and  mau}^  passages  in  other 
Elizabethan  literature.  When,  however,  we  see  these  same 
incongruences  in  authors  like  Cowley,  Milton,  Hume,  Lamb, 
Thackeray,  and  others,  we  must  ascribe  them  to  tlie  freer 
syntax  they  were  working  under.  Lamb,  especially,  Avas  a 
free  lance  in  English :  he,  as  seen  in  other  sections  of  this 
treatise,  occasionally  used  you  was  and  two  negatives,  both  of 
which  were  in  disrepute  in  many  quarters  when  he  used 
them. 

Defoe  is  called  very  ungrammatical  hy  one  of  the  most 
eminent  literary  critics  of  the  last  century.  No  doubt  this 
critic  and  rhetorician  judged  Defoe  by  some  of  these  old  plu- 


58  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

rals  that  survived  through  Ids  day  (1661-1731)  and  longer. 
V/e  have  noted  some  of  the  passages:  "In  which  ivas  era- 
barked  all  my  effects  in  the  world " ;  "  there  ivas  but  twenty- 
eight  in  the  whole  city";  "numbers  of  people  which  ,  ,  .  had 
flocked  to  London  .  .  .  was  such,"  etc.  In  a  note  to  one  of 
these  passages,  a  distinguished  American  scholar  says,  "Defoe 
does  not  always  observe  grannnatical  correctness."  But, 
applying  the  canons  of  syntax  as  quoted  from  Matzner, 
Kellner,  and  other  great  grammarians,  we  find  that  they  all 
come  under  these  canons;  which  means  that  Defoe  used  the 
English  language  according  to  the  free  syntax  in  vogue  before 
the  eighteenth  century  reformers  and  their  nineteenth  century 
disciples  had  improved  the  language,  rewritten  Shakespeare, 
and  put  us  all  in  strait-jackets. 

One  famous  passage  from  the  heart  of  the  living  language 
may  well  be  quoted.  In  his  great  Recessional  hymn,  Kipling 
says, 

The  tumult  and  the  shouting  dies, 

where  most  of  us  would  use  die  in  both  spoken  and  written 
English.  Some  one,  not  willing  to  be  convinced,  may  say  that 
Kipling  wanted  a  rhyme  for  "sacrifice." 


XVIII 

CONSIDER  FOR  REGAUD 

Some  objection  lias  been  raised  to  the  word  consider  in  the 
sense  of  regard;  e.g.,  "He  is  considered  an  able  man."  It  is 
recognized  by  the  Century,  which  quotes  Newman  and  J.  K. 
Seeley.  Webster's  International  Dictionary  recognizes  it  with 
a  passage  from  Macaulay.  The  New  English  Dictionary  rec- 
ognizes it,  quoting  Lord  Berners,  Marryat,  James  Bryce,  and 


CONSIDER  FOE  BEG  AMD  59 

Andrew    Lang.     The    Standard  and  the    Encyclopedic    dic- 
tionaries recognize  it.    Genung  condemned  it  in  1893. 
The  writer  has  seen  it  in  the  following : 

Addison    20  Ilolnies   5 

Steele   3  Hawthorne    1 

Fielding  22  Thomas   Hughes    1 

Goldsmith     1  Grote     19 

Hume    4  Macaulay   36 

Franklin     3  Carlyle    3 

Gibbon    28  Sir   Henry    Taylor 1 

Lamb    5  Stevenson   1 

Hallam    32  Sir   Leslie    Stephen 1 

Poe    1  George  Eliot   2 

This  shows  an  unbroken  history  from  Addison  to  Stevenson. 

Richard  Grant  White  ^  (1867)  ridiculed  this  use  of  con- 
sider. He  thought  that  consider  was  derived  from  the  Latin 
for  "sit  down  together"  and  should  be  held  to  its  etymology. 
So  he  ridiculed  the  idea  of  its  being  used  in  the  meaning 
of  "think",  "suppose,"  and  thought  it  should  be  used  in  the 
sense  of  "ponder",  "contemplate."  According  to  White  and 
his  school,  a  word  cannot  cut  loose  from  its  etymology  and  ex- 
pand its  territory:  consider  would  have  to  mean  "sit  down 
together."  Or,  if  it  should  be  traced  back  to  the  word  sidvra 
(stars),  we  should  have  to  take  counsel  with  the  stars  before 
forming  an  opinion.  All  which  is  utterly  opposed  to  recent 
scholarship  and  modern  philology. 

The  lists  given  above  show  that  consider  in  the  meaning  of 
"regard"  has  been  in  good  standing  for  hundreds  of  years. 
Genung  withdrew  his  objection  in  1900,  but  White's  attacks 
are  still  found  in  our  libraries  in  new  editions  of  his  books. 
Moreover,  Genung 's  earlier  editions  are  still  on  many  book- 
shelves. 

Stevenson  says,  "I  considered  this  one  of  the  most  unhand- 
some speeches  ever  made."     Gibbon  says,  "The  conquest  of 

J  Word.'i   (I ml   Their  Lars,  Mi.   101,   102. 


60  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Britain  was  considered  as  already  achieved."  Addison  says, 
"She  considers  her  husband  as  her  steward";  "Cowley, 
observing  the  cold  reserve  of  his  mistress's  eyes,  .  .  .  con~ 
siders  them  as  burning-glasses  producing  love."     (Spectator.) 


XIX 

CONSPIRE  -^  CONCUR,  AGREE 

From  its  association  with  conspiracy,  one  might  think  that 
conspire  would  always  have  an  unpleasant  connotation.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  case.  It  is  recognized  in  an  entirely  pleas- 
ant meaning  by  the  Century,  Webster,  Standard,  and  Ency- 
clopedic dictionaries,  which  quote  Goldsmith,  Cowper,  Emer- 
son, and  Tyndall. 

The  word  is  used  in  a  pleasant  sense  by  the  following : 

Spenser     1  Coleridge    1 

John  Evelyn    ._ 2  Grote    1 

Dryden     1  Hallam   3 

Congreve    1  Sir  E.  Strachey   1 

Joseph   Hall    1  Poe    1 

Addison     1  E.  A.  Abbott 1 

Pope    3  Prescott   1 

Dr.  H.  Elair 1  William  Minto    1 

Goldsmith     4  George  Eliot  1 

Philip    Freneau    1  Bulwer    1 

De  Quincey   1  Stevenson    1 

Shelley    1  H.  W.  Mabie 1 

Here  are  27  roputable  authors  using  the  word  in  its  pleasant 
meaning  and  4  dictionaries  recognizing  it. 

De  Quincey,  in  his  Lake  Poets,  says  of  Coleridge,  "all 
things  conspired  (=  combined)  to  throw  back  my  thoughts 
upon  that  extraordinary  man  whom  I  had  just  quitted."  Ste- 
venson says,  "the  steepness  of  the  slope,  the  continual  agile 
turning  of  the  line  of  descent,  and  the  old  unwearied  hope  of 
finding  something  new  in  a  new  country,  all  conspired  to  lend 


CONSTANT(L¥)  =  CONTINUAL{LY)  61 

me  wings."  (Travels  with  a  Donkey.)  Prescott  in  his  essay 
on  Sir  Walter  Scott  says,  "It  is  impossible  to  glance  at  Scott's 
early  life  without  perceiving  how  powerfully  all  its  circum- 
stances .  .  .  conspired  to  train  him  for  the  peculiar  position 
he  w^as  destined  to  occupy  in  the  world  of  letters." 

Conspire  in  the  meaning  of  "combine,"  with  no  unpleasant 
connotation,  is  found  in  English  literature  from  Spenser  to 
Stevenson.  The  pleasant  use  of  the  word  is  not  disputed  in 
the  books,  though  the  writer  long  had  doubts  as  to  its 
propriety. 


XX 

CONSTANT  (LY)  =  CONTINUAL  (LY) 

Genung  in  his  high  school  Ehetoric  ^  says,  "Constantly, 
which  means  'steadfastly,'  not  to  be  used  for  'often'  or  'con- 
tinually.' "  Mr.  Genung  himself,  however,  uses  constantly  in 
this  sense  at  least  ten  times  in  his  books,  and  it  is  probable  that 
thirty  or  forty  cases  could  be  found,  showing  that  his  theory 
is  stricter  than  his  practice. 

The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  constantly  in  the  sense 
of  "continually."  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it, 
quoting  Macaulay.  The  Oxford  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quot- 
ing reputable  authors.  It  is  probable  that  hundreds  of  cases 
could  be  found  in  Macaulay :  the  list  below  shows  94  passages. 

The  word  occurs  continually  in  every  author  worth  quoting : 
the  writer  has  recorded  the  following  passages : 

Bacon 1  Franklin  7 

Baxter    3  Johnson    3 

Addison     1  Goldsmith     1 

Pope   5  Burke    1 

Swift     1  George  Canipliell    2 

Steele    2  Hume    4 

Fielding    21  Gibbon    10 

1  Appendix  III,  p.  SOS. 


62 


STUDIES  IX  USAGE 


Hazlitt    1 

Jeffrey    1 

Jefferson     3 

Lamb    9 

Hallam     19 

Soiithey    2 

Grote     16 

Keats     1 

Trench    7 

Mrs.   Anna   Jamei-on 1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   1 

Dean  Alford 2 

Holmes   4 

Dickens     4 

George  Eliot   7 

Bulwer     7 

Matthew  Arnold 2 

Macaulay  94 

Hawthorne    2 

E.  A.  Fjeeman 1 

Thomas  Hughes    3 

W.  D.  Whitnev 32 


H.  H.   Furness   1 

O.  F.  Emerson   1 

Henry  Bradley   1 

Grant  Allen   3 

Justin    ^McCarthy    1 

G.  W.  Cable.  .  .' 1 

I'rofessor  John  Earle 4 

Dr.  C.   Geikie    1 

Henry  Sweet  1 

Saintsbury   2 

Huxley   6 

H.   A.  Beers 1 

Genung 10 

T.  N.  Page   3 

Lounsbury     43 

Sidney  Lee    1 

Kittredge  and   Greenough 10 

W.  W.  Skeat 2 

Stevenson     fi 

Longfellow     1 

Arlo  Bates   3 

James  Brvce   2 


Here  we  have  about  58  authors  and  about  385  passages ; 
many  others  could  be  added.  As  seen  from  a  glance  at  the 
table,  constantly  is  a  favorite  word  with  Macaulay,  Whitney, 
and  Professor  Lounsbury — a  great  stylist  and  two  great  Eng- 
lish scholars.  If  one  authority  can  establish  a  word,  Macaulay 
certainly  establishes  the  word  under  discussion.  Notice  the 
faithful  custodians  of  language  in  the  list :  Alford,  A.  S.  Hill, 
Trench,  "Whitney,  Genung,  Kittredge,  and  Lounsbury.  Polite 
colloquial  English  and  the  most  finished  speakers  regularly 
employ  constant  and  constantly. 

The  meaning  "continual"  is  a  perfectly  natural  extension  of 
the  original  meanmg of  constaiit ;  e.g.,  "A  constant  (steadfast) 
friend  becomes  a  constant  (frequent)  visitor." 

Macaulay  (History  of  England,  I,  chap.  Ill)  says,  "It  is,  in 
some  sense,  unreasonable  and  ungrateful  in  us  to  be  constantly 
discontented  with  a  condition  w^hich  is  constantly  improving. 


COTEMPOBARY  =  CONTEMPOBABT  63 

But,  ill  triitli,  there  is  a  constant  improvement  precisely  be- 
cause there  is  constant  discontent."'  Stevenson  says,  "the 
fear  of  the  sea  was  constantly  in  my  mind,  battling  Avith  the 
fear  of  my  companions.''  {Master  of  Ballantrac.)  "They 
were  then  constantly  together."  (Master  of  Ballantrae.) 
Steele  says,  "His  faults  are  generally  overlooked  by  all  his 
acquaintance ;  and  a  certain  carelessness,  that  constantly 
attends  all  his  actions,  carries  him  on  with  greater  suc- 
cess. ..."     {Spectator.) 


XXI 

COTEMPOEARY  =  CONTEMPORARY 

The  great  scholar  Bentley  (1662-1742)  denounced  cotem- 
porary  as  a  "downright  barbarism."  For  some  time  it  ex- 
pelled contemporary,  but  has  now  been  beaten  in  the  race. 
George  Campbell  in  1776  expressed  his  preference  for  the  form 
in  con.  Cotemporary  was  on  the  forbidden  list  of  W.  C. 
Bryant,  the  very  critical  editor  of  the  Evening  Post.  It  is 
condemned  by  Genung  ^  in  his  school  Rhetoric.  The  Century 
says  that  it  is  the  less  usual  form.  It  is  recognized  as  proper 
by  the  Standard,  the  New  English,  "Webster,  Worcester,  and 
the  Encyclopedic  dictionaries,  the  last-named  quoting  Locke 
and  Sprat  as  using  it. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  w^ord  once  in  Hazlitt,  three  times 
in  Christopher  North,  twice  in  Dean  Trench,  once  in  Poe. 

It  is  undoubtedly  less  common  in  recent  literature  than  the 
other  word,  but  should  not  be  condemned  as  an  error.  There 
seems  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  form  in  co;  it  is  just 
now  out  of  fashion  but  may  come  into  vogue  at  some  later 
period. 

Christopher  North  in  an  essay  says :  "Go  back  a  little,  step 
over  an   imperceptible  line,   to  tlie  cotemporary  of  Dryden, 

>  Outlines  of  Rlictoric,  1900,  p.  308. 


64  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Milton,  and  you  seem  to  have  overleaped  some  great  elironolog- 
ical  boundary";  "Shakespeare  and  Spenser,  what  cotcmp'o- 
raries!";^^ln  the  verses  of  our  old  poet  and  his  cotemporaries, 
Venus  and  Cupid  are  as  active  as  they  were  with  Homer  and 
Anacreon."  Since  the  days  of  North,  contempomry  has  be- 
come the  regular  form. 


XXII 
A  COUPLE  OF  FOE  TWO 

The  phrase  a  couple  of  for  two  was  attacked  vigorously  by 
Richard  Grant  White  ^  in  1867.  Quackenbos  -  in  various  edi- 
tions of  his  textbooks  continued  the  attack.  Genung^  in  his 
first  edition  condemned  the  phrase,  but  w'ithdrew  his  opposi- 
tion after  "he  had  taken  account  of  criticism  and  comment." 
Unfortunately,  however,  a  scholar  like  Genung  can  never 
undo  the  harm  that  he  does  an  innocent  word  or  phrase. 

The  phrase  is  recognized  by  the  Century,  quoting  Sidney, 
the  Bible,  Shakespeare,  Pepys,  Locke;  by  Webster,  quoting 
Sidney,  the  Bible,  Addison,  Dickens,  and  Carlyle ;  by  the  New 
English  Dictionary,  quoting  Caxton,  Coverdale,  Ascham, 
Shakespeare,  Steele,  and  others  not  so  eminent.  The  writer 
has  seen  it  in  the  follovring : 

Interlude    of    Thersytes 1  Coleridge    1 

Latimer    1  Hazlitt     1 

King   James    Bible 2  Philip    Frenean    1 

Addison '^  Jane  Austen    2 

Dean  Swift   1  Scott    2 

Sterne     3  Lockhart    2 

Boswell 1  Christopher  North    1 

Dr.   Johnson    1  De  Quincey   2 

Smollett    1  Poe   10 

1  Words  and  Their  I'sa^,  pp.  102,  lO.S. 

2  See  Practical  Rhetoric,  1R96,  p.  232. 

s  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  ISOrt,  p.  .".OS;  1900,  pp.  .^Ol,  308. 


A  COUPLE  OF  FOE  TWO  65 

Holmes  1  Matthew  Arnold 1 

Mrs.  Gaskell    1  Mrs.  Anna  Jameson 1 

Dr.   John   Brown 1  George    Meredith 10 

Bulwer    2  Professor    John    Earle 1 

George    Eliot    21  Mrs.   H.   Ward 4 

Huxley    1  Stevenson     12 

Dickens     .31  Henry  James    1 

Thackeray    38  Saintsbury     3 

Euskin     1  Kipling     1 

Froude    1  George  P.  Marsh 1 

W.  E.  Henley 2  John   Fiske    7 

D.   G.  Mitchell    4  W.   D.   TVTiitney 2 

Browning     1  Sir  Henry   Taylor 1 

Here  are  about  50  authors  in  more  than  175  passages. 

It  is  pretty  common  in  polite  society  but  still  more  popular 
with  the  uneducated  classes.  A  good  many  people  think  that 
a  word  popular  with  the  uneducated  classes  is  apt  to  be  wrong, 
but  this  is  not  a  safe  inference.  Of  course  it  is  true  that  much 
of  their  grammar  and  of  their  vocabulary  is  broken  down 
aristocracy,  but  not  all  of  it. 

The  phrase  under  discussion  has  a  long  and  honorable  pedi- 
gree. How  it  is  used  by  some  eminent  writers  of  different 
peri'ods  will  be  seen  from  the  following  passages.  Addison  in 
the  Spectator  says,  "As  we  were  upon  the  road,  Will  Wimble 
joined  a  couple  of  plain  men  who  rid  before  us."  Coleridge 
says,  "If  people  would,  in  idea,  throw  themselves  back  a 
couple  of  centuries."  Ruskin  says,  "A  great  nation,  for 
instance,  does  not  spend  its  entire  national  wits  for  a  couple  of 
months  in  weighing  evidence  of  a  single  ruffian's  having  done 
a  single  murder;  and  for  a  cojiple  of  years  see  its  own  chil- 
dren murder  each,  other,"  etc.  Matthew  Arnold  (Religious 
Sentiment)  says,  "A  couple  of  Syracusan  women,  staying  at 
Alexandria,  agreed  on  the  occasion  of  a  great  religious 
solemnity,"  etc.  This  phrase  ran  riot  in  the  volumes  of 
Dickens,  Thackeray,  and  George  Eliot,  but  is  not  so  common 
in  recent  literature,  though  Stevenson  was  partial  to  it.  The 
attacks  of  AYliite  and  other  verbalists  mav  have  influenced  the 


66  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

destinies  of  this  locution  in  the  literature.  The  phrase  occurs 
in  many  excellent  books  by  men  of  scholarship  not  in  the 
table  given  above. 

XXIII 
CULTURED  AS  ADJECTIVE 

Of  cultured  as  an  adjective,  A.  S.  HilP  said,  "At  present 
it  has  no  standing  in  literature  or  in  polite  society. ' '  Genung  - 
said,  about  the  same  time,  "Though  somewhat  undesirable  in 
formation,  is  in  too  common  usage  to  be  condemned."  When 
such  good  doctors  disagree,  what  shall  we  poor  patients  do? 
Nothing  but  go  to  the  higher  authorities,  the  reputable  authors, 
and  the  "easy  language  of  cultivated  men  Avho  are  neither 
specialists  nor  pedants." 

Before  citing  the  authors,  let  us  see  what  the  dictionaries 
say.  The  Century  recognizes  cultured,  quoting  Izaak  Taylor. 
Webster  recognizes  it,  quoting  the  same  passage  from  Taylor 
and  one  from  Whittier.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  and  quotes  Goldsmith,  Tyndall,  and  Whittier.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  a  passage  from 
Cowper.  These  facts  seem  to  refute  Hill's  statement. 
The  writer  has  seen  the  word  in  the  following : 

W.  D.  Whitney    2       Eicharrl  Grant  Wliite 2 

Fitzedward  Hall 1       Walter  Bagehot   2 

John   Earle   2       J.  F.  Genung   6 

Herbert   Spencer    1       Bishop  Moule    2 

Huxley    1       G.  K.  Chesterton    1 

William  Hayes  Ward 1       Henry  Drummond    1 

Frederic  Harrison    2       Edward  Dowden  1 

As  most  of  these  men  were  writing  in  1902,  Hill's  statement 
was  unwarranted.  The  word  is  used  by  many  men  of  distin- 
guished culture  not  in  the  table. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1902,  n.  78; ' 
2  Outlines  of  Rhetorir,  1900,  p.  SOS. 


DEAD  COBPSE  67 

If  cultured  is  I'rom  thi'  noun  ■'culture,'"  it  hi'lougs  in  the 
class  with  moneyed,  gifted,  talented,  which  seem  to  be  well 
established.  Cultivated  is  probably  more  common  in  the  litera- 
ture, but  cultured  should  not  be  condemned. 

A  few  passages  will  show  how  the  word  is  used  by  reputable 
authors.  Herbert  Spencer  says,  "Transmitting  traditional 
statements  concerning  ghosts  and  gods,  at  first  to  neophytes  of 
his  class  only,  but  afterward  to  the  cultured  classes."  Fred- 
eric Harrison  says,  "But  to  Homer  and  the  primeval  type  of 
heroic  man  in  his  beauty,  and  his  simpleness,  and  joyous- 
ness,  the  cultured  generation  is  really  dead.  ..."  G.  K. 
Chesterton  in  his  Browning  says,  "But  his  interest  in  these 
studies  was  not  like  tliat  of  the  ordinary  cultured  visitor  to 
the  Italian  cities." 

The  word  has  considerable  vogue  in  the  books  of  reputable 
scholars,  editors,  men  of  letters,  and  lecturers  of  the  last 
twenty  years. 

XXIV 
DEAD  CORPSE 

When  the  Bible  reader  meets  in  II  Kings  19:35  and  Isaiah 
37:36  with  the  phrase,  "when  they  arose  early  in  the  morn- 
ing, behold,  they  were  all  dead  corpse^,"  he  is  apt  to  be  amazed 
at  the  use  of  corpses  coupled  with  dead.  If,  however,  he  knew 
that  corpse  used  to  mean  "a  living  body,"  he  would  not  be 
surprised.  Chaucer  often  speaks  of  "  a  living  corpse. ' '  ]\Ialory 
says,  "And  therewith  he  fell  down  on  the  one  side  to  the  earth 
like  a  dead  corpse";  "But  this  night,  at  midnight,  here  came 
a  number  of  ladies,  and  brought  hither  a  dead  corpse,  and 
prayed  me  to  bury  him."  {Morte  D 'Arthur.)  The  phrase  is 
used  by  Robert  Manning  and  Thomas  Sackville.  The  latest 
case  the  writer  has  seen  is  in  Defoe's  History  of  the  Plague: 
"Looking  upon  themselves  all  as  so  many  dead  corpses,  they 
came  to  the  churches  without  the  least  caution." 


68  STUniES  IN  USAGE 

Only  since  Defoe's  day  lias  the  word  corpse  hecome  applied 
exclusively  to  a  dead  body;  it  is  no  longer  used  for  "living 
body." 

XXV 

DEMEAN  —  DEBASE,    DEGRADE    ONESELF 

Demeaned  himself  by  marrying  a  French  lady  of  birth  qrite  inferior 
to  his  own.      (Thacleroji.) 

The  use  of  demean  in  the  sense  of  "debase  or  degrade 
oneself"  has  some  vogue  in  polite  societv  in  America.  It  is 
condemned  however,  by  George  Campbell,  A.  S.  Hill,  Genung, 
the  Standard  Dictionary,  and  Lord  Macaulay.  Fitzedward 
Hall  gave  it  a  wide  berth  but  did  not  condemn  it.  The  Century 
says,  "Being  thus  illegitimate  in  origin  and  inconvenient  in 
use,  from  its  tendency  to  be  confused  with  demean  in  its  proper 
sense,  the  word  is  avoided  b}^  scrupulous  writers."  The  Cen- 
tury quotes  a  passage  from  Sheridan  and  one  from  Tliackeray 
— not  the  same  as  that  at  the  head  of  this  section.  Webster 
recognizes  it,  quoting  the  same  passage  from  Vanity  Fair  as 
that  quoted  by  the  Century.  The  New  English  Dictionary 
recognizes  the  word  in  the  sense  of  "degrade  oneself,"  quoting 
Doddridge,  Eichardson,  Thackeray,  Black,  Foote,  George 
Eliot,  the  Satnrdaij  Rcvieiv,  and  some  other  authorities  less 
known. 

The  writer  has  recorded  two  cases  from  Thackeray,  one 
from  Dickens,  and  one  from  Emerson. 

Instead  of  demean  Geniing^  suggests  "degrade"  and  "be- 
mean."  This  last-named  word  is  approved  by  the  Century, 
which  quotes  Max  Midler  and  James  Payne  as  using  it, 

Dickens  (Our  Vestry)  says,  "Mr.  Wagg  .  .  .  takes  that 
opportunity  of  saying  that,  if  an  honorable  gentleman  whom 
he  has  in  his  eye,  and  will  not  demean  himself  by  more  par- 

1  Outlines  of  Ithetoric,  1900,  p.  310. 


DESCRIPTION  =  KIND,  SORT  69 

ticularly  naming.  ..."  Emerson,  who  is  more  classical  in 
his  use  of  language,  says,  "His  vice  glasses  his  eye,  demeans 
his  cheek,  pinches  the  nose,  sets  the  mark  of  the  beast  on  the 
back  of  the  head." 

The   majority  of  our  authorities   seem  to  be   in   favor  of 
demean  in  the  sense  of  "degrade  oneself." 


XXVI 

DESCRIPTION  =  KIND,  SORT 

Whenever  any  tolerable  book  of  the  same  description  makes  its  ap- 
pearance, the  circulating  libraries  are  mobbed.  (Macaulay:  Essay  on 
History.) 

Quackenbos  ^  says,  '' Description  means  an  account  of  char- 
acteristics, and  is  not  a  synonym  of  kind  or  sort."  Genung- 
says,  "Better  not  to  use  this  in  the  sense  of  'kind.'  " 

The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  the  disputed  use, 
quoting  some  old  authors  and  one  recent  one,  Ik  Marvel. 
Webster  recognizes  this  use  of  the  word,  quoting  passages 
from  Alexander  Hamilton  and  Macaulay.  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictipnary  recognizes,  and  quotes  Shakespeare.  The  Century 
recognizes,  quoting  Shakespeare,  Macaulay,  Dowden,  and  the 
Washingtoii  Chronicle.    The  Standard  recognizes  it. 

It  is  used  by  the  following  authorities : 

Shakespeare     1  Macaulay   4 

Bulwei*    4  Grote     .  .*. 2 

Lamb    2  Ha-uthorne     1 

Jefferson    1  Poe     8 

Sharon   Turner    1  Lowell     1 

Hallam     2  Stevenson    3 

This  use  of  description  was  common  with  our  grandfathers 
and  great-grandfathers  and  is  seen  frequently  in  the  speeches 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  p.  232. 
2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  310. 


70  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

and  letters  of  the  public  men  of  two  or  three  generations  ago. 
No  doubt  hundreds  of  passages  could  be  collected  from  the 
speeches  of  the  elder  statesmen  of  America,  from  Hamilton 
and  Madison  down  to  Calhoun,  Clay,  Webster,  etc.  The  word 
is  not  very  common  in  recent  literature,  and  is  giving  wa}^  to 
shorter  words  like  sort  and  ]ii)id,  such  being  the  tendency  of 
the  language. 

All  readers  of  Shakespeare  remember  the  passage  in  the 
Merchant  of  Venice  where  Portia  says: 

Double  six  thousand,  and  then  treble  that. 

Before  a  friend  of  this  description 

Shall  lose  a  hair  through  Bassanio  's  fault. 

Macaulay  in  his  essay  on  HeiUam  says,  "We  will  not  posi- 
tively affirm  that  a  law  of  this  descripiion  must  always,  and 
under  all  circumstances,  be  unjustifiable."  Stevenson  says, 
"But  in  the  open  portmanteau,  no  papers  of  any  description" ; 
"there  was  probably  (my  doctor  added)  some  predisposition 
in  the  family  to  accidents  of  that  description."  {Master  of 
Ballantrae.) 

The  word  is  rather  old-fashioned  nowadays  and  is  rare  in 
recent  authors. 

XXVII 

DIFFICULTLY 

The  writer  became  interested  in  tlic  adverb  difficidtly  from 
seeing  it  in  Coleridge's  Biographia  Literaria.  It  is  recognized 
by  Webster,  quoting  the  poet  Cowper.  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  a  quotation  from  the  Passenger 
of  Benvemdo  (a.d.  1612).  The  Century  recognizes  it,  quoting 
Fielding.  Fitzedward  Ilall  cited  the  following  authors  as 
using  it :  Barrow,  Otway,  Jeremy  Collier,  Bentley.  Addison, 
Fielding,  Br.  Johnson.  Cowper,  Southey,  Goldsmith. 

Coleridge's  sentence  referred  to  above  is,  "and  how  restless, 


DIBECTLY  AS  A  CONJUNCTION  71 

how  difficulthj  hidden,  the  powers  of  genius  are."  George 
Campbell  in  his  rhilosophy  of  Rhetoric  says,  "If,  for  instance, 
what  is  difficulthj  acted  be  difficultly  pronounced,"  etc. 

Though  Ave  all  feel  the  need  of  this  word  at  times,  it  is  now 
practically  obsolete :  it  is  too  ' '  difficultly ' '  pronounced. 

Hardly  as  a  substitute  is  handicapped  by  its  frequent  use  in 
the  sense  of  scarcely. 

The  dictionaries  do  not  intimate  that  the  word  had  such  a 
wide  vogue  in  earlier  periods  and  with  some  of  the  great 
authors;  hence  this  section. 


XXVIII 

DIRECTLY   AS   A   CONJUNCTION 
Kose  turned  dircitly  she  heard  the  steps  and  voices.     (Mrs.  H.  Ward.) 

The  use  of  directly,  immediately,  and  instantly  as  conjunc- 
tions equivalent  to  as  soon  as  is  generally  called  a  Briticism. 
They  are  so  used  to  some  extent  in  the  literature  of  England 
and  have  considerable  vogue  in  colloquial  English  in  England. 
The  writer  has  seen  no  cases  of  them  in  standard  American 
authors  but  sees  them  occasionally  in  minor  authors. 

Directly  is  condemned  by  the  Century  Dictionary,  which 
quotes  a  passage  from  Dickens.  "Webster  says,  "Common  in 
England,  but  not  a  desirable  use."  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionary says,  "Colloquial,"  but  quotes  Newman,  Buckle,  and 
some  minor  writers.  Quackenbos,^  Genung,-  A.  S.  Hill,^  and 
Herrick  and  Damon  *  condemn  this  use  of  directly.  Richard 
Grant  White "  condemned  it  but  said  that  it  was  used  by 
Buckle  and  Cardinal  Newman. 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  p.  233. 

-  Outlines  oj  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  310. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1902,  p.  337. 

^Kew  Componition  and  Rhetoric,  1911,  p.  263. 

^  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  186  flf. 


72  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Jespersen/  however,  recognizes  directly  as  a  "new  conjunc- 
tion," quoting  a  passage  from"  Dickens. 

The  writer  has  seen  directlij  in  tlie  following : 

Thackeray    3       British    Quarterly   Review 1 

Dickens     3       Bulwer    4 

Mattliew  Arnold 1       Mrs.   H.   Ward 7 

Dickens  is  usually  regarded  as  the  principal  promoter  of  this 
word ;  but  the  writer  has  seen  it  of tener  in  Mrs.  Ward. 

Instantly  is  used  by  Thackeray  in  Henry  Esmond;  immedi- 
ately, by  Milman  in  his  History  of  the  Jews. 

Matthew  Arnold  says,  '^ Directly  this  play  of  mind  wants  to 
have  more  scope,  and  to  forget  the  pressure  of  practical  con- 
siderations a  little,  it  is  checked,  it  is  made  to  feel  the  chain." 
Thackeray  says,  "From  whom  he  ran  across  the  grass  instantly 
he  perceived  his  mother,  and  came  to  her."  Milman  says, 
"The  wind  continued  in  the  same  quarter  all  the  night;  but 
immediately  they  had  passed  over,  and  while  the  Egyptians, 
madly  plunging  after  them,  were  in  the  middle  of  the 
passage,"  etc. 

Of  course  adverbs  can  easily  become  conjunctions.  Noiv 
(see  page  183,  below)  has  been  a  conjunction  for  twelve  hun- 
dred years.  0)ice  is  going  the  same  way:  it  is  recognized  by 
Jespersen,^  with  quotations  from  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  and 
H.  G.  Wells.  The  writer  has  seen  it  several  times  in  very  good 
authors.  The  Century  Dictionary  notes  it  as  "recent  and 
specially  British,"  quoting  a  passage  from  the  Contemporary 
Review.  Once  and  directly  are  taking  root  in  America  at  this 
moment. 

There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  considerable  opposition  to  these 
"new  conjunctions,"  but  we  find  some  excellent  authors 
employing  them  occasionally. 

1  Groicth  and  structure  of  the  English  Lamjuaije,  p.  206. 


DONATE  73 


XXIX 


DONATE 

Donate  is  condemned  by  Richard  Grant  White  ^  and 
Genung;  -  also  b,y  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant  as  "a  new-fangled  word." 
The  Century  and  the  Encyclopedic  dictionaries  call  it  an 
Americanism.  The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Chiefly 
U.  S." 

Webster  and  the  Standard  recognize  it.  Lounsbury^  thinks 
that  it  is  needlessly  abused  and  that  it  is  as  good  as  fascinate 
and  some  others  in  -ate.  He  concedes  that  it  is  an  American 
coinage  and  sa3's  that  it  is  probably  about  fifty  years  old. 

Donate  is  no  doubt  a  popular  derivative  of  donation,  which 
has  been  established  in  English  for  centuries.  If  so,  it  is  what 
is  called  a  "back-formation"-  e.g.,  beg  from  beggar,  peddle 
from  pedlar. 

The  form  donate  appeals  to  the  American  sprachgefiihl;  it 
fills  the  mouth  better  than  give ;  sounds  "bigger"  in  the  papers 
and  on  the  street,  and  also  comes,  by  a  familiar  process,  from 
the  noun  donation.  With  all  these  things  in  its  favor,  it  seems 
to  be  establishing  itself  in  the  popular  language  on  this  side 
of  the  ocean. 

Some  good  scholars  forget  that  most  of  our  words  were  once 
new-fangled,  or  rather,  neologisms.  Others  think  that  no  good 
thing  can  come  out  of  America.  If  the  millionaire-philanthro- 
pists and  their  clients  need  a  new  word,  why  not  let  them 
have  it  ?    Words,  like  politicians,  may  have  a  constituency. 

The  writer  has  not  seen  the  word  in  his  course  of  reading 
in  the  literature:  give  is  the  standard  word;  donate  may  yet 
have  its  day. 

'^  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  205,  20G. 

''Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  311. 

=•  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  p.  l'J4. 


74  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

XXX 

DOUBLE  COMPAEATIVES  AND  SUPEELATIVES 

Every  reader  of  Shakespeare  will  recall  more  elder,  most 
unkindest,  and  other  double  comparatives  and  superlatives. 
These  are  treated  by  Abbott  in  his  SJmkespearian  Grammar, 
§  11.  Abbott  says  that  the  old  English  endings  er  and  est  lost 
some  of  their  force  and  were  sometimes  reinforced  by  ' '  more ' ' 
and  "most"  for  the  purposes  of  emphasis.  Kellner,  in  his 
Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax,  ^254,  says,  "The 
language,  hesitating  between  the  old  English  and  the  French 
way  of  comparison,  often  uses  both."  They  cite  examples 
from  Layamon,  Mandeville,  Caxton,  Malory,  and  Shakespeare. 

Double  comparatives  and  superlatives  are  found  in  various 
periods  of  English.  Lesser,  for  instance,  is  still  common  in 
the  literature,  and  foremost  is  too  well  known  to  need  any 
defense.  The  illiterate  classes  have  coined  onlicst,  which  is 
psychologically  a  double  superlative. 

Thomas  Malory  says,  "This  is  the  most  shamefullest  message 
that  ever  I  heard  speak  of."  Shakespeare  in  Julius  Caesar 
says, 

Brutus  shall  lead,  and  we  will  grat'c  his  heels 
With  the  most  boldest  and  best  hearts  of  Kome. 

In  Hamlet,  Polonius  says  to  Reynaldo  (II.  i.  11)  : 

come  yon  7rwre  nearer 
Than   j'our   particular    demands   will   touch    it. 

The  only  recent  case  of  the  double  superlative  or  compara- 
tive that  the  author  has  recorded  is  in  Swinburne's  Atalanta 
in  Calydon  : 

Touch  the  most  dimmest  heights  of  trembling  heaven. 


TEE  DOUBLE  NEGATIVE  75 


XXXI 

THE  DOUBLE  NEGATIVE 

Nor   never  look  upon  each  other's   face; 

Nor  never  write,  regreet,  nor  reconcile,  cte.     ( Shales peare.) 

Never  no  imitator  ever  grew  up  to  his  author.     (Ben  Jonson.) 

Why  should  the  Double  Negative  be  treated  in  this  vol- 
ume ?  Is  the  author  attempting  to  revive  this  construction  so 
long  banished  from  polite  society  and  fi-om  literatvire?  By  no 
means;  but  he  will  show  that  the  double  negative  lived  ou  in 
very  considerable  vigor  till  pretty  late  in  good  English,  and 
that  it  did  not  disappear  entirely  from  standard  literature 
until  the  time  of  millions  now  living. 

For  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  not  special  students  of 
English  let  us  make  a  few  prefatory  statements.  Two  nega- 
tives were  used  very  frequently  in  Anglo-Saxon,  and  are  found 
in  Gothic,  Old  High  German,  and  Middle  High  German.  They 
occur  frequently  in  Chaucer,  ]\[alory,  tlie  Miracle  Plays,  Cax- 
ton,  Latimer,  and  other  works  and  authors  of  the  early  mod- 
ern period.  Oliphant^  says,  "Caxton  was  unable  to  pass 
llie  Double  Negative  on  to  Tyndale,  a  generation  later."  But, 
though  Tyndale  avoided  it,  it  was  used  by  others  of  his  day 
and  of  later  days.  During  the  sixteenth  century  some  used 
it  and  others  avoided  it.  Sir  Thomas  More,  Latimer,  Tunstall, 
Andrew  Boorde  and  other  well-known  men  used  it,  while 
others  as  well  known  dropped  it.  At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  we  find  it  used  considerably  by  Shakespeare,  though 
the  editors  have  changed  the  texts  of  Shakespeare  in  many 
passages.  Oliphant-  thinks  that  Sir  Thomas  Greshara 
(1519-1579)  "was  the  last  great  Englishman  who  took  much 
pleasure  in  the  Double  Negative."     About  1700,  it  was  used 

1  The  yew  Enolinh,  I,  330. 

2  The  Xcw  EnsjUnh,  I,  508. 


IC)  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

by  Jeremy  Collier,  a  prominent  theologian  and  politieal 
writer.  Toward  the  end  of  the  century,  Lamb  used  it  in  a 
letter  to  Coleridge  (1797)  :  ''can't  see  no  wit  in  her."^  Cow- 
ley used  it  about  the  middle  of  the  preceding  century.  The 
Avriter  has  seen  no  cases  of  it  in  Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor. 
There  is  one  case  in  C  ran  ford,  published  in  1853.  Mrs.  Gas- 
kell  says,  "Mrs.  Jamieson  must  have  looked  at  the  wall  above 
her,  for  she  never  moved  a  muscle  of  her  face,  no  more  than 
if  she  had  not  seen  her."  In  Browning's  poems  published 
between  1844  and  1864,  we  find  "not  a  bad  assembly  neither" ; 
"you  cannot  speak  from  the  churchyard  neither" — both  com- 
mon Shakespearean  negative  constructions,  but  a  modified 
double  negative,  not  like  the  one  from  Ben  Jonson  at  the  head 
of  this  chapter.  These  are  exactly  like  the  modified  double 
negative  seen  in  Latin:  e.g.,  Numejiiam  (Scipionem)  ne 
minima  quidem  re  offendi.     (Cicero  to  Laelius.) 

One  type  of  the  double  negative — nor  .  .  .  neither — has 
been  pretty  common  in  the  literature  down  to  the  present  time. 
This  is  the  kind  paralleled  in  Cicero  and  Nepos;  while  the 
genuine,  unmodified  double  negative  always  makes  an  affirma- 
tive in  classical  Latin.  The  study  of  Greek  being  so  unusual, 
we  may  say  here  that  the  heaping  of  compound  negatives  was 
very  common  in  that  language;  e.g.,  " Nobody  told  me  nothing 
about  nobody."  "We  have  reason  to  believe  that  early  Latin 
used  two  negatives  for  emphasis. 

Do  two  negatives,  then,  really  make  an  affirmative  as  our 
teachers  have  told  us  and  as  we  have  told  others?  By  no 
means.  This  rule,  says  Lounsbury,  was  "foisted  upon"  us 
from  the  Latin ;  it  does  not  belong  naturally  ta  the  English 
language.  The  double  negative  is  indigenous  to  the  Teutonic 
languages ;  how  natural  it  is  to  ours,  popular  speech  shows  us. 
The  double  negative  fought  hard  for  its  life  in  the  sixteenth 
century  but  succumbed  finally  to  scholastic  influences.     It  is 

'  This  may  have  bocu  mount  for  humor,  but  I.umb  was  fond  of  old  construc- 
tions. 


TEE  DOUBLE  NEGATIVE  11 

out  of  vogue  but  not  ungrammatieal.  It  sometimes  crops  out 
at  inopportune  times  in  tlie  speech  of  self-taught  men  and 
Avomen  who  liave  heard  it  from  their  elders  and  their  teachers. 
It  is  natural. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  double  negative  springs  from  the 
desire  for  emphasis  and  seems  to  be  natural  to  human 
language. 

In  recent  texts  of  Shakespeare  the  double  negatives  are 
being  restored  to  the  text.  Schmidt,  the  German  Shake- 
spearian scliolar,  says  tliat  two  negatives  were  very  common 
in  Elizabethan  English.  lie  adds.  "]\[uch  that  would  blemish 
tlie  language  of  a  logician  may  well  become  a  poet  or  an 
orator. ' ' 

At  the  head  of  this  section,  the  author  ciuoted  from  Shake- 
speare a  passage  involving  two  negatives.  Just  below  this 
there  is  another  passage  that  has  been  "corrected"  by  early 
editors : 

Nor  never  bv  advised  purpose  meet 
To  plot,  contrive,  or  complot  any  ill. 

Again,  in  the  same  play  [Bicliard  77,  V.  v.  70)  : 

Where  no  man  never  comes,  but  that  sad  dog 
That  brings  me  food  to  make  misfortune  live. 

These  negatives  are  all  found  in  the  First  Folio  (1623), 
but,  w^hen  the  double  negative  gradually  passed  out  of  vogue, 
the  editors  thought  that  the  text  was  corrupt  and  amended  it 
accordingly.  Recent  editions  of  Shakespeare's  plays  abound 
with  the  double  negative. 

As  to  w^hether  two  negatives  make  an  affirmative,  let  us 
quote  Greenough  and  Kittredge  ^ :  "Two  negatives  may  make 
a2i  aiTirmative  in  logic,  but  they  seldom  do  in  English  speecli." 
Not  unnecessary,  not  impossible,  etc.,  they  call  "somewhat 
artificial." 

''■Words  and  Their  Wcijk  in  English  i?pccc1i,  pp.  220,312. 


78  STUDIES  IN   USAGE 

XXXII 
DOVE  EOT!  DIVED 

Professor  John  Earle  ^  says,  '"The  preterite  dove  of  the  verb 
dive  survives  not, only  in  the  poetry  of  Longfellow  but  also  in 
American  prose."  Earle  cites  a  passage  from  Dr.  Hayes's 
Open  Polar  Sea,  and  is  referring  to  a  passage  in  the  earlier 
editions  of  HiaicatJia;  but  Longfellow,  in  later  editions, 
changed  dove  to  dived,  probably  after  some  critics  had  at- 
tacked the  word  as  out  of  date.  In  1855,  Trench  spoke  of 
some  words  that  are  "old  rather  than  bad  English,"  dove 
among  the  number.  He  refers  to  a  passage  in  Longfellow 
and  one  other,  not  named,  but  probably  in  Hayes's  book.  The 
Century  recognizes  dove,  quoting  a  passage  from  G.  W. 
Cable.  Carpenter"  says,  "Dived  or  dove.^'  Worcester  says, 
''Rarely  dove.'"  Quackenbos  says  that  the  form  dove  has  dis- 
appeared. Webster's  International  and  the  Standard  call  it 
"colloquial."  The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Dialectical 
IT.  S.  and  England,"  but  quotes  Dr.  Hayes  and  the  Neiv  York 
Herald  (1882).  Kittredge  and  Farley^  say,  ''Dove  is  com- 
mon in  America";  but  this  can  hardly  refer  to  the  literature. 

The  only  case  of  dove  that  the  present  writer  has  seen  in  a 
wide  course  of  reading  is  in  H.  W.  Mabie's  Norse  Stories: 
"Then  he  sprang  up,  threw  the  net  into  the  fire,  and  running 
to  the  river  changed  himself  into  a  salmon,  and  dove  deep  into 
the  still  waters."  Earle 's  statement  is  rather  apt  to  mislead 
the  student. 

Dived  is  certainly  supreme  in  polite  society  and  in  litera- 
ture, but  dove  has  great  vitality  in  "popular  talk." 

^rhUoJoqy  of  the  Enplinh  Tongue,  1887,  p.  278. 
^Principles  of  Enfilixh  Grammar,  1898,  p.  242, 
^Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  298. 


DRANK  AS  A  PAETICIPLE  79 

XXXIII 
DRANK  AS  A  PAETICIPLE 

Of  course  drunk  is  iniicli  commoner  than  drank  as  a  parti- 
ciple. The  New  English  Dictionaiy  says,  "From  the  seven- 
teenth to  the  nineteenth  century  drank  Avas  intruded  from  the 
past  tense  into  the  past  participle  to  avoid  the  inebriate  associ- 
ations of  drunk.''  This  dictionary  quotes  Hume,  Dr.  Johnson, 
Shelley,  Clarendon,  and  one  or  two  others  as  using  drank. 
Drank  is  recognized  hy  the  Century  Dictionary,  Geo.  R.  Car- 
penter,^ Baskervill  and  Sewell,-  and  Webster.  Baskervill  and 
Sewell  quote  examples  from  Thackeray  and  Bayard  Taylor. 
Cardinal  Newman  is  quoted  as  using  drank.  A.  S.  Hill  says,^ 
"Best  modern  usage  requires  drunk."  Krapp*  says,  "His- 
torically drunk  is  the  better  form."  John  Fiske  in  quoting  a 
passage  involving  drank  marked  it  "sic,"  showing  that  he 
did  not  like  it. 

Drank  is  used  in  the  following : 

Sniythe  's  Travels 1  Milman     1 

Hugh   Jones  ^' 1  Kingsley    1 

Arbuthnot    1  Poe     1 

Southey    1  Stevenson    1 

D  'Israeli    1  Mabie    1 

The  form  drank  has  considerable  vogue  in  polite  colloquial 
English.  Our  lists  show  that  it  is  not  a  vulgarism  in  any 
sense ;  does  not  rank  with  rang,  used  by  some  educated  people 
of  some  parts  of  the  U.  S. ;  e.g.,  "The  bell  has  rang'';  but 
drunk  is  the  regular  form. 

Milman  says,  "so  bitter  that  it  could  not  be  drank."  Ste- 
venson says,  "It  was  observed  that  he  had  also  eaten  with 
unusual  heartiness,  and  drank  deep."" 

^Principles  of  English  Grammar,  p.  242. 

2  English  Grammar,  p.  155. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1002,  p.  146. 

^2Iodern  English,  p.  292. 

^Present  .S'/a/e  of  Virginia. 


80  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

XXXIV 
EAT  FOE  ATE 

Ate  is  the  usual  preterite  of  cat,  lint  eat  has  some  standing 
in  literature  and  in  polite  colloquial  English. 

Fitzedward  Hall^  in  1873  said  that  eat  was  "grossly  ignor- 
ant but  was  good  once."  Webster  says,  "Obsolescent  and  col- 
loquial." Genung^  says,  "Not  in  good  use."  George  Camp- 
bell preferred  ate  but  said  that  cat  was  used  to  some  extent, 
A.  S.  Hill,^  while  admitting  that  cat  has  some  standing,  says 
that  ate  is  "far  preferable."  Kittredge  and  Farley  do  not 
recognize  cat  in  their  grammar,  published  in  1913. 

Worcester,  the  Standard,  the  Centurv%  and  the  New  English 
dictionaries  recognize  eat  as  a  secondary  form  of  the  preterite, 
but  prefer  ate.  The  New  English  Dictionary  quotes  John 
Evelyn  as  using  cat.  Baskervill  and  Sewell*  recognize  cat  as 
a  second  form  and  cite  a  passage  from  IMilton's  poetry. 
Carpenter,^*  Whitney,''  Richard  IMorris,^  and  Lounsbury^  give 
both  ate  and  cat. 

The  writer  has  seen  it  in  the  following: 

Milton     1  Boswell     2 

Izaak  Walton    1  Matthew  Prior   2. 

Pepys    2  Dickens    -1 

Defoe    1  Stevenson     4 

Goiasmitli     2 

The  form  is  still  in  use  among  some  of  the  upper  classes  of 
the  old  states,  having  been  brought  over  to  the  colonies  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  when  it  was  in  good  standing  in  England. 

1  Modern  English,  p.  207. 

^Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900.  p.  312. 

^  lieginnincia  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  140. 

*  Ihu/lifth  Grammar,  p.  IHS. 

"  Princiidcs  of  Eni/lish  Grammar,  p.  242. 

"  E.tsentials  of  English  Grammar,  p.  114. 

''Historical  Outlines  of  English  Accidence,  190.",  p.  2."". 

^History  of  the  English  Language,  p.  .S35. 


EAT  FOF  EATEN  81 

Milton  in  Paradise  Regained  says, 

In  the  Mount 
Mosses  was  I'orty  days,  nor  cat  nor  drank. 

Pepys  says,  "we  put  in,  and  eat  a  mouthful  of  porke. "    Bos- 
well  says,  "They  who  beheld  with  wonder  how  much  he  eat 
upon  all  occasions  when  his  dinner  was  to  his  taste,"  etc. 
Stevenson  gave  the  form  a  good  start  in  recent  literature. 


XXXV 

EAT  FOB  EATEN 

Eaten  is,  of  course,  the  usual  participle,  but  eat  has  some 
standing. 

Webster  says,  "Obsolescent  or  coUocpiial. "  A.  S.  HilP 
says,  "Confined  to  the  illiterate."  Kittredge  and  Farley  and 
the  New  English  Dictionary  do  not  recognize  it. 

George  Campbell,  though  he  prefers  eaten,  says  that  eat  was 
used  in  his  day.  It  is  recognized  as  permissible  by  Worcester, 
the  Standard,  and  the  Century.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Shakespeare  and  Tennyson.  The  gram- 
marians Carpenter,-  Richard  INIorris,^  Baskervill  and  Sewell  * 
recognize  it  as  one  form  of  the  participle.  Lounsbury  ^  recog- 
nizes it  in  his  various  editions. 

The  form  eat  is  found  in  the  following : 

Shakespeare 3  Coleridge    1 

Two  Xoble  Kinsmen   1  Tennyson     1 

Dr.    Samuel    Johnson 1  Dirkens 4 

Matthew  Prior    1 

How  can  Hill  say  that  eat  is  confined  to  the  illiterate  ? 

The  writer  has  not  seen  the  form  in  any  living  author  of 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1900,  p.  146. 

"Principles  of  Engiish   Grammar,  p.  242. 

^Historical  Outlines  of  English  Accidence,  p.  2"". 

*  English  Grammar,  p.  158. 

^  Historij  of  the  English  Language,  p.  .">3."j. 


82  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

high  repute.  It  is  heard  occasionally  among  the  polite  classes 
of  the  old  states  but  seems  to  be  gradually  dying  out.  It  was 
l)rought  over  by  the  colonists  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  when  it  had  considerable  vogue  in  England. 

Two  passages  in  famous  literature  help  to  keep  c((t  in  use : 
first,  Coleridge's  line, 

It  ate  the  food  it  ne'er  had  eot; 
second,  Teiniyson  's  passage, 

the  island  princes  over-hold 
Have    cat   our   substnnfe. 

Dickens  uses  the  form  at  least  four  times  in  Pklwick 
Papers;  but  some  may  not  regard  him  as  a  high  authority  on 
usage. 

XXXVI 

EDITORIAL  AS  A  NOUN 

The  use  of  editorial  as  a  noun  was  condemned  by  Richard 
Grant  White^  as  "an  unpleasant  Americanism."  The  English 
authors  avoid  it,  using  "leader"  and  "leading  article."  A.  S. 
Hill,-  though  criticizing  editorial,  says,  "It  may  in  time  be 
accepted,"  It  is  already  accepted  by  Worcester,  "Webster, 
the  Standard,  the  Encyclopedic,  the  New  English,  and  the 
Century  dictionaries,  the  last-named  quoting  the  Century 
Magazine  as  an  authority.  The  New  English  Dictionary 
quotes  only  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  in  England ;  Mrs.  H.  B. 
Stowe  and  Harper's  Magazine  in  America.  The  word  occurs 
in  the  textbooks  of  Professors  Quackenbos,  John  S.  Hart,  and 
Scott  and  Denney,  whose  opinion  will  carry  weight  with  many 
readers.  Though  avoided  in  England,  the  word  in  question 
has  wide  vogue  in  the  United  States  both  in  periodical  lit- 

^  Wordfi  and  Their  Uses,  p.  109. 

-Beginnings  of  Rlietoric  and  Composition,  1002,  p.  104. 


EDITOBIAL  AS  A  NOUN  83 

erature  and  iii  polite  colloquial  English ;  in  standard  litera- 
ture it  has  been  seen  very  rarely  by  the  author  of  this  volume. 
Genung  ^  says,  "Seems  to  be  coming-  into  good  usage  as  a  noun 
instead  of  '  editorial  article. '  " 
Editorial  is  used  by  : 

D.    G.   Mitchell 1       John   8.  Hart   11 

H.  W.   Mabie 1       Hohiies    1 

George  Eliot  uses  "leader."  Richard  Grant  White,  Dean 
Alford,  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant,  and  Justin  McCarthy  use  "leading 
article.""  This  phrase  is  inexact,  while  both  this  and  "edito- 
rial article"  are  too  cumbersome  for  the  English  language, 
famous  for  its  practical  character. 

Donald  G.  Mitchell  in  Dream  Life  says,  "You  think  all  the 
editorials  in  the  morning  papers  are  remarkably  "well  written, 
— whether  upon  your  side,  or  upon  the  other."  H.  W.  Mabie, 
in  a  recent  essay,  says,  "The  Civil  War  was  in  the  near  future, 
and  there  were  no  more  carefully  reasoned  editorials  on  the 
situation  and  the  questions  involved  than  those  that  appeared 
in  this  very  influential  journal."  In  the  last  sentence,  a 
"cultivated  man  who  is  neither  specialist  nor  pedant"-  uses 
l)oth  editorial  and  journal  in  meanings  that  make  the  puristic 
writers  shudder. 

As  already  said,  the  author  believes  that  Greenough  and 
Kittredge  are  right  in  recognizing  the  authority  of  such  men 
as  IMitchell  and  Mabie,  though  in  matters  of  usage  we  lay 
special  stress  upon  such  authors  as  Macaulay,  Tennyson,  and 
Wordsworth. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  noun  editorial  is  often  seen  in 
books  by  men  of  literary  ability  who  do  not  happen  to  be  famous 
but  have  a  "genius  for  idiom."  Would  the  average  American 
reader  understand  "leader"  and  "leading  article"? 

1  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  "12. 

-Orocnoiigh  and  Kittrodsc  :    IT'o/v?,-.-  and  Their  Waij.^  in  Fiif/lifh  i^peeeh,  p.  1L'2. 


84 


STUDIES  I.V  USAGE 


XXXVII 


EITHER       EACH  OF  TWO 

On  either  side  the  river  lie 

Long  fields  of  barley  and  of  rye. 


(Ten  in/son.) 


The  use  of  either  for  both  is  criticized — though  mildly — by 
Genung;^  he  says,  "Each  would  be  better."  It  is  recognized 
by  the  Standard,  the  New  English,  Webster's,  the  Encyclo- 
pedic, and  the  Century  dictionaries,  which  quote  King  Alfred, 
Coverdale,  the  King  James  Bible,  Milton,  Scott,  Hobbes,  Jowett, 
Prescott,  Cowper,  Tennyson,  and  others.  It  is  recognized  by 
Nesfield,-  the  grammarian. 

This  use  of  either  is  common  in  Chaucer,  and  is  found  very 
often  in  Malory.  In  more  modern  authors  the  following  cases 
have  been  noted : 


King  James  Bible 2 

Gorboduc  1 

Shakespeare  4 

Milton     7 

Addison    4 

Swift   3 

Prior    3 

Pope   1 

Dryden    3 

Dr.   Johnson    1 

Gibbon    3 

Fielding 5 

Gray    2 

Philip  Freneaii    1 

Scott 16 

Wordsworth     4 

Keats    3 

Pollok    1 

Irving   1 


Dickens 10 

Bayard   Taylor   2 

Hawthorne    7 

Motley 3 

De  Quincey   2 

Matthew  Arnold   2 

Tennyson    ."O 

William  Minto 1 

Cooper    2 

Bulwer    9 

Mihnan    1 

Poe    4 

Thackeray    7 

Whittier   1 

Bryant    2 

Andrew  Lang    2 

Wm.  Moiris 3 

Fronde     1 

Holmes  1 


1  Outliurs  of  Rhrforic,  1000,  p.  .'512. 

^  Englixh  (Irammar  Pant  and  Present,  p.  29. 


EITHER  EEFE BEING  TO  MOEE  THAX  TWO  85 

Fiske    1  G.   W.  Cable    4 

W.  W.  Skeat 1  T.  N.  Page 3 

Kiugsley     2  Kipling 1 

Clough    2  Henry  \an  Dyke .  . 1 

Browning 9  Swinburne    3 

Brooke    2  George   Meredith    1 

Eossetti    3  T.  B.  Aldrich    1 

Stevenson 12 

Here  are  over  50  authorities,  iii  all  periods. 

Tennyson  uses  the  word  very  frequently ;  only  a  fraction 
of  his  use  of  the  word  is  shown  in  the  table. 

Additional  examples  may  be  given. 

In  this  lone,  open  glade  I  lie, 

Screened  by  deep  boughs  on  either  hand.     (Arnold.) 

And  drops  of  water  fell  from  tithir  hand.      (Tennyson.) 

The  benches  at  either  end  of  the  platform  were  accordingly  filled  with 
the  royal  and  princely  personages  invited.      (Motley.) 

the  great  quadruple  city  on  eiihcr  side  of  the   Nile,  Luxor  and  their 
satellites.      (Milman.) 

On  either  side  were  horizontal  niches.      (Haictliorne.) 


XXX  VI II 

EITHER  EEFEEEIXG  TO  MOEE  THAX  TWO 

Quackenbos  ^  says,  ''Eitlur  always  implies  liro."  Genung - 
says,  "To  be  used  of  two  objects;  cniy  one,  of  more  than  two." 
Baskervill  and  Sewell,^  while  preferring  tnnj,  give  sentences 
from  Edward  Everett  and  Emerson  in  which  either  and  neither 
refer  to  more  than  two.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  ({noting  "W.  D.  Howells. 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  1S96,  p.  23."?. 
2  Outlines  oj  Rhetoric,  1900,   p.  .312. 
^  En(/lifilt  Grammar,  p.  300. 


86  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Tlie  writer  lias  noted  it  in  the  following : 

Poe    3  Cliurton    Collins    1 

Emerson 1  H.  W.  Mabie   1 

O.  W.  Holmes 1  J.   F.   Genung    1 

W.  D.  Whitney   2  John  Earle    1 

Whitney,  for  instance,  says,  ''cither  of  the  last  three  syl- 
lables, "and'' c/^/(er  of  the  (four)  languages  named."  Genung 
says,  "as  either  of  these"  (three),  etc.  Here  we  see  that 
Genung 's  own  rule  is  too  strict  for  him  to  obey,  because  it 
is  stricter  than  the  language  itself.  It  would  seem  that  the 
authors  and  the  professors  of  rhetoric  clash  here  as  in  many 
other  places. 

Cliurton  Collins  says,  ''either  of  the  first  three  quartos  of 
Romeo  and  Juliet."  Poe  in  The  Black  Cat  says,  "Finally  I 
hit  upon  what  I  considered  a  far  better  expedient  than  either 
of  these  (four  plans)."  Poe  uses  neither  of  six  or  seven. 
Holmes  uses  cither  referring  to  four  things.  Whitney  says, 
"in  Greek  it  may  be  given  to  either  of  the  last  three  syllables." 
Again :  "no  one,  probably,  who  has  ever  added  a  knowledge 
of  either  of  the  (several)  languages  named  to  that  of  his 
mother-tongue,"  etc. 

XXXIX 

FOUMS  IX  ELSE  AND  ELSE'S 

Many  intelligent  persons  hesitate  between  forms  like  some- 
hodij  else's  and  somehody's  else. 

Oliphant  ^  says  that  the  form  in  else's  began  to  appear  in 
the  literature  about  1840  and  that  it  originated  with  Dickens. 
The  earliest  examples  found  by  the  writer  are  in  Thackeray, 
1851  and  1852,  and  the  earliest  in  Dickens  in  1860;  but  we 
need  not  doubt  the  correctness  of  Oliphant's  statement,  as 
Dickens  wrote  some  of  his  greatest  books  as  early  as  1840. 

^Thc  yciv  EiKjUtth,  II,  208. 


FOEMS  IN  ELSE  AND  ELSE'S  87 

Jespersen/  after  saying  that  the  ancient  practice  was  to 
add  's  to  the  pronoun  and  not  to  else,  and  that  afterwards  it 
was  in  most  eases  added  to  the  else,  quotes  nones  else  from  an 
author  of  1665;  anybody's  else  from  Thackeray;  and  nobody's 
else  from  Mark  Twain.  Of  the  else's  form,  he  quotes  eight 
examples  from  reputable  authors,  Dickens,  Thackeray,  and 
George  Eliot  among  them. 

The  Century  Dictionary  and  the  best  modern  grammars 
treat  somebody  else  and  its  congeners  as  compound  pronouns 
with  the  s  at  the  end.  This  is  the  easiest  and  the  best  solution 
of  the  question. 

Baskervill  and  Sewell  -  in  their  grammar  take  the  view  given 
above.  They  cite  eight  examples  from  reputable  authors,  all 
of  them  using  elsc^s  before  the  noun;  e.g.,  nohoely  else's 
business. 

A.  S.  Hill,^  while  taking  the  same  view  as  the  authorities 
cited  above,  says  that  Henry  James  and  Horace  Walpole  some- 
times use  anybody's  else,  "Walpole  using  it  both  with  and  with- 
out the  noun;  but  it  may  be  said  that  anybody's  else  life,  {fs 
used  by  Walpole,  is  extremely  rare  in  literature  and  is  utterly 
intolerable. 

When  the  noun  is  present,  the  almost  universal  usage  is 
else's.  'It  occurs  pretty  often  in  Dickens  and  in  George  Eliot; 
occasionally  in  Thackeray  and  in  Walter  Bagehot.  The 
writer's  figures  are:  Somebody  else's  book,  13;  somebody's 
else  book,  none.  This  book  is  somebody  else's,  8;  this  book  is 
somebody's  else,  2.  Of  this  last  type  the  writer  has  seen  one 
case  in  Congreve  and  one  in  Thackeray;  none  in  Dickens  and 
in  George  Eliot. 

These  locutions  are  not  very  common  in  standard  literature. 
Possibly  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  correct  possessive  form  has 
frightened  some  writers  away  from  it.     It  may  be  that  the 

1  Progrcsfi  in  Ldiitjuniic,  p.  20S. 

-  English  Grammar,  p.  ."jOn. 

"  IU'(jiun>n<jR  0/  THirUiric  and  CotuposiUon.  1002,  p.  47. 


88  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

statements  made  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs  will  "strengthen 
the  feeble  knees"  and  help  this  very  useful  and  convenient 
form  to  be  of  greater  service. 

If  some  and  body  can  unite  and  form  somehody;  if  any  and 
body  can  form  anybody;  if  no  and  thing  can  form  nothing — 
and  so  on — why  cannot  some  and  body  and  else  be  treated 
as  a  unit  and  take  the  possessive  s  ?  Again :  why  cannot 
somcbodyelse,  nobodyelse,  etc.,  come,  after  a  while,  to  be  writ- 
ten as  one  word? 

A  locution  analogous  to  this  is  the  phrasal  genitive,  e.g.. 
The  King  of  England's  palace,  the  Duke  of  Gloucester's  wick- 
edness, Avhich  is  well  established  in  English,  though  unthink- 
able in  Latin. 

As  to  who  +  else,  there  is  some  uncertainty.  Jespersen,^ 
after  quoting  who  else's  daughter  from  reputable  literature, 
says,  "Some  people  would  perhaps  prefer  'whose  else.'  "  Cer- 
tainly he  cannot  mean  whose  else  daughter:  this  is  intolerable. 
Sir  James  Murray,  the  great  English  scholar,  told  Jespersen 
tlfat  he  would  say  ivho  else's  baby  but  whose  else  without  a 
substantive;  e.g.,  '^MHiose  else  can  it  be?" 

A  few  passages  from  the  literature  will  no  doubt  prove  inter- 
esting. George  Eliot  says,  "He  never,  indeed,  chose  to  be 
absolute  except  on  some  one  else's  behalf;"  "thinking  their 
own  (fool's  cap)  lies  opaque  while  everybody  else's  were  trans- 
parent." Ruskin  says.  "Everybody  else's  Fortitudes  announce 
themselves  clearly  and  forcibly."  Saintsbury  says,  "is  his 
and  no  one  else's." 

*  Progress  in  Languaoe,  p.  299. 


ENCOUNTEE  89 

XL 

ENCOUNTER 

I  drew  my  chair  towards  hiiii  in  sili'iiee.  and,  accidentally  lifting  up 
my  eyes,  encountered  the  oi)posite  mirror.      (Buhcer.) 

She  bestirred  herself  in  an  obliging  way  that  Avas  the  most  charming 
thing  yet  encountered.     (G.  W.  Cable.) 

From  the  connotation  of  hostility  so  often  seen  in  the  word 
encounter,  one  might  infer  that  the  use  of  the  word  seen  in  the 
two  sentences  at  the  head  of  this  section  was  not  proper.  It 
is,  however,  recognized  in  this  passive,  or  inoffensive,  sense 
by  the  Century,  the  Encyclopedic,  and  Webster's  dictionaries, 
the  last  named  saying,  however,  "especially  as  enemies."  It 
is  recognized  by  the  New  English  Dictionary,  quoting  Raleigh, 
Eveh-n,  Johnson,  Byron,  Tyndall,  and  Hamerton. 

This  use  of  the  word,  though  rather  old-fashioned,  is  found 
in  some  of  our  best  recent  authors. 

The  writer  has  traced  it  through  the  following  authors : 

Dr.  Johnson 1  Dean   Stanley    1 

Prescott    1  Milman   1 

Cooper    1  Christopher  North   1 

Dean  Trench   1  George  Eliot   3 

Poe 4  Loimsbury     1 

H.  T.  Tuckerman   1  James  Lane  Allen    1 

Bul-wer    1  John  Fiske 1 

Scott 1  G.   W.   Cable 4 

Hawthorne 9  Stevenson 1 

It  is  still  heard  with  old-fashioned  people  in  the  old  states 
and,  like  so  much  of  their  "dialect,"  has  the  best  possible 
pedigree,  though  other  words  are  more  usual. 

The  following  sentences  show  the  word  in  its  pleasant  con- 
notation. Poe  in  the  Purloined  Letter  says,  "In  short,  I  never 
yet  encountered  the  mere  mathematician  who  could  be  trusted 


90  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

out  of  equal  roots."  Hawthorne,  who  is  especially  partial  to 
the  word,  says,  "Miriam  had  encountered  an  unknown  man, 
and  led  him  i'orlh  with  her";  "the  air  was  full  of  kindred 
melodies  that  encountered  one  another";  ''encountering  so 
rare  a  being,  and  gifted  with  the  power  of  sympathy  with  his 
sunny  life."  All  these  are  from  The  Marble  Faun.  Dean 
Stanley  says,  "Here  they  encountered  a  monk,  who  with  the 
'sprengel'  sprinkled  all  their  heads  with  holy  water." 

The  word  has  a  continuous  history  all  the  way  from  Samuel 
Johnson  to  some  of  the  most  reputable  living  writers;  but 
Webster  is  correct  in  saying  "especially  as  enemies." 


XLI 

EVER  SO  AND  NEVER  SO 

Quackenbos  ^  condemns  ever  so  as  the  ' '  very  opposite  of  what 
is  intended"  and  connuends  Carlyle  for  using  never  so.  The 
Century  quotes  a  case  of  ever  so  in  the  old  ballad  of  Childe 
Maurice.  Webster  cites  examples  of  it  from  Emerson,  Pope, 
and  Thackeray.  Miitzner  -  cites  examples  from  Butler,  Rowe, 
Fielding,  and  Pope.  Oliphant^^  cites  one  case  of  ever  so  as 
occurring  between  1558  and  1570,  and  adds,  "We  have  seen 
never  so.''  Of  course,  because  never  so  was  almost  the  only 
form  for  hundreds  of  years.  Ever  so  is  rare  in  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.  In  the  eighteenth  century  it  began 
to  overtake  7i ever  so  and  has  been  much  more  common  for 
about  two  centuries. 

Of  ever  so,  the  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases : 

Anglo    Saxon    (Alfred) 1      Pope     1 

Bolingbroke 1      N.   Bailey    1 

Fielding 4      Chesterfield    10 

i  Practical  Rhetoric,  edition  of  1S96,  p.  234. 

-  Enoliiih  Grammar  (Greco's  translation),  III,  130. 

3  The  ^'rH■  Enfjlish,  I,  ^56. 


EVEB  SO  AND  NEVER  SO  91 

Shaftesbury 2  Bret  Harte    1 

Boswell 1  Edward  Egglestoii 1 

Jonathan  Edwards 1  Browning   1 

Dr.   Johnson    10  Ruskin    -^ 

Goldsmith     2  Hohnes   ■* 

George  Campbell 1  H.  N.   Hudson 1 

William  Hazlitt    2  G.  W.  Cable 1 

Byron    1  Swinburne    ^ 

J.  Howard  Payne 2  Richard  Grant  White 1 

Grote   1  William   Morris    1 

De  Quincey   1  Thackeray   -jS 

Lamb    2  Dean  Stanley    1 

Dr.  Hugh  Blair 4  Hawthorne 3 

Dr.  John  Brown 2  Tennyson   2 

Christopher  North   2  I'oe   1 

Matthew    Arnold    1  Fitzedward   Hall    1 

Summary :  38  authorities,  113  cases. 

Thackeray  uses  ever  so  38  times  in  the  l)ooks  read  in  this 
course  of  study;  never  so,  only  once. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  both  Johnson 
and  George  Campbell  expressed  a  decided  preference  for 
ever  so;  and,  as  far  as  the  writer  has  noticed,  Johnson  used 
it  exclusively.  The  support  of  these  tAvo  men  may  have  helped 
ever  so  considerably,  though  the  tendency  in  its  favor  had 
already  developed. 

Never  so,  like  its  rival,  begins  in  the  Anglo-Saxon.  It  runs 
through  Chaucer,  Malory,  the  Miracle  Plays,  Latimer,  Bacon, 
Shakespeare,  the  Bible,  and  Milton.  While  never  so  Avas  so 
vigorous,  ever  so  was  lying  quiescent,  to  emerge  in  the  sixteenth 
century. 

The  Century  Dictionary  quotes  Mandeville,  the  Bible,  and 
Sandys  as  using  never  so.  It  adds  that  never  so  is  now  usually 
replaced  by  ever  so;  it  should  say  that  ever  so  is  more  common 
in  recent  literature.  Webster  quotes  the  Bible  and  Black- 
stone  as  using  never  so.  Greenough  and  Kittredge^  say,  "the 
negative  form  is  still  occasionally  used."      (This  is  rather 

1  Words  and  Tin  if  ir(/i/6'  in   Eiiylitili  N/KCc/i,  p.   T.IG. 


92 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


underestimating  its  vitality.)  Matzner  ^  quotes  cases  of 
never  so  from  Anglo-Saxon,  Middle  English,  the  Miracle  Plays, 
Shakespeare,  Marlowe,  and  Richard  Bentley.  A.  S.  West,  in 
his  edition  of  Bacon's  Essays,  says,  "  'Never  so'  in  modern 
idiom  ever  so,"  though  he  justifies  the  former  also. 

Carlyle,  as  far  as  the  writer  has  noticed,  always  uses  the 
negative  form — 16  to  0. 

Never  so  has  been  noted  in  the  following : 


Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle   1 

Chaucer    2 

Miracle  I'lays  7 

Malory    2 

Marlowe   3 

Massinger    1 

Shakespeare    7 

Bible 3 

Prayer  Book   2 

Bacon    7 

Latimer    10 

Izaak  Walton    1 

Thomas  More   1 

Lyly   2 

John  Webster  3 

Jeremy  Taylor    1 

Butler   1 

Milton    5 

Clarendon    1 

Matthew  Prior   2 


Bishojj  Burnet    1 

Congreve 1 

Cowley   1 

Fielding    9 

South    '. 3 

Sprat    2 

John  Knox    2 

Bishop  Percy    1 

Thackeray    1 

Emerson 3 

George  William  Curtis 1 

Browning   3 

Fi-eeman  1 

Carlyle    16 

Kuskin    1 

Kingsley    1 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

Hart  and  Hart 1 

E.  C.  Stedman 1 


Summary :  39  authorities,  112  cases. 

Both  phrases,  then,  had  their  birth  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 
period.  Both  are  logical,  if  that  is  to  be  counted.  Both  have 
good  usage  in  their  favor.  The  negative  form  seems  to  be 
gradually  passing  out  of  the  language  except  in  a  few  circles, 
where  the  infinencc  of  Shakespeare,  the  Bible,  and  Carlyle  is 
felt  especially.  Tn  the  seventeenth  century,  the  two  locutions 
ran  .somewhat  togethci-.    With  Dr.  Johnson,  ever  so  made  a  big 


^Enylisli   (Irammar  ((irocc's  lr;uislati(ni) .  Ill,  pji.  130,  1.^1. 


EVEB  SO  AND  NEVEE  SO  93 

leap.  Since  then  it  has  distanced  never  so.  Taking  the  lit- 
erature as  a  whole,  the  two  phrases  are  about  even.  For  the 
last  two  centuries,  ever  so  is  far  more  coniuion. 

In  1864  Dean  Alford  said,  "In  familiar  speech  we  mostly 
say  ever  so;  in  writing,  especially  in  the  solemn  and  elevated 
style,  we  mostly  tind  never  so.  .  .  .  These  two  amount  to  the 
same."  The  Oxford  Dictionary  says  that  ever  so  has  been 
substituted,  "from  a  notion  of  logical  propriety,"  for  never  so, 
"which  in  literary  use  appears  to  be  much  older  and  still 
occurs  archaically."  As  to  the  respective  ages  of  the  two 
locutions,  nothing  more  need  be  said.  As  to  the  archaic  use  of 
never  so  it  may  be  said  that  some  writers  and  speakers  use  it, 
not  because  they  wish  to  be  archaic,  but  because  they  do  not 
know  which  is  better  and  because  they  vaguely  remember 
seeing  it  in  some  of  the  old  standard  books,  especially  the 
Bible,  the  Prayer  Book,  and  Shakespeare. 

For  a  full  explanation  of  both  phrases  under  discussion,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  Century  Dictionary  under  the  word 
never,  and  to  Greenough  and  Kittredge's  Words  and  Their 
Ways  in  English  Speech,  page  316. 

We  may  conclude  this  section  by  quoting  passages  from  the 
literature. 

Tennyson  in  the  Holy  Grail,  line  614  ff.,  says, 

And  this  am  I,  so  that  yc  care  for  me 
Ever  so  little. 

In  Maud,  he  says, 

8he  is  coming,  my  own,  my  sweet; 

Were  it  ever  so  airy  a  tread, 
My  heart  would  hear  her  and  beat. 

Were   it  earth  in   an  earthy  bed. 

Ruskin  (Crotvn  of  Wild^  Olive)  says,  "You  must  put  your 
ear  clown  ever  so  close  to  her  lips,  to  hear  her  speak."  Matthew^ 
Arnold  in  his  Last  Words  on  Translating  Homer  says,  "they 
are,  and  must  remain,  like  those  lines  we  read  of  in  Euclid, 


94  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

which,  though  produood  ever  so  far,  can  never  meet."  Haw- 
thorne in  the  Morhlc  Faun  says,  "she  might  have  helped  to 
fill  the  already  crowded  ami  cumbered  world  with  pictures, 
not  destitute  of  merit,  but  falling  short,  if  by  ever  so  little, 
of  the  best  that  has  been  done";  "the  grape-juice  that  gushed 
beneath  his  childish  tread,  be  it  (vcr  so  small  in  quantity, 
sufficed  to  impart  a  pleasant  flavor  to  a  whole  cask  of  wine." 
(No  cases  of  never  so  have  been  found  in  Hawthorne  by  the 
author  of  this  volume. ) 

Emerson  says  (The  Poet),  "Man,  never  so  often  deceived, 
still  watches  for  the  arrival  of  a  brother  who  can  hold  him 
steady  to  a  truth,  until  he  has  made  it  his  own";  "and 
never  so  surprising,  the  fact  of  mechanics  has  not  gained  a 
grain's  weight."  (Emerson,  like  Carlyle,  seems  to  use  the 
never  so  habitually.) 

Browning  uses  both  forms  but  never  so  more  frequently. 
In  Waring  he  says, 

A  pilot  for  you  to  Triest? 
Without  one,   look  you   nc\T  so  big, 
They'll  never  let  you  up  the  ba3^ 
We  natives  should  know  best. 

In  his  Madhouse  Cell  he  says, 

No  suns  and  moons  though  c^er  so  bright 
Avail  to  stop  me. 

How  can  either  locution  be  condemned  by  those  who  follow 
the  great  authors? 

XLII 

EVERY  AS  A  PRONOUN 

Every  as  a  pronoun,  e.g.,  ^^ Every  of  us,"  survived  until 
some  time  after  Shakespeare.  Abbott  treats  it  in  his  Shake- 
spearian Grammar,^  and  every  student  of  Shakespeare  meets 
it  in  his  reading;  of  course,  it  is  obsolete  now. 

1  p.  24. 


EVIDENCE  AS  A   TET^B  95 

It  was  eommoii  in  Chancer  and  is  seen  pretty  frequently  in 
Malory ;  occasionally  in  Thomas  ]\Iore  and  Bacon.  The  writer 
has  seen  it  three  times  in  Jeremy  Taylor:  "every  of  his  crea- 
tures", "every  of  these"',  "every  of  its  members."  Taylor 
died  in  1667.  The  Century  quotes  a  passage  from  Winthrop's 
History  of  New  England,  whose  author  died  in  1649.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Rev. 
Henry  Hammond,  who  died  in  1660.  The  latest  examples  that 
the  writer  has  are  taken  from  Defoe's  History  of  the  Plague, 
published  in  1722:  ''and  every  of  these  to  have  one  quarter 
for  his  limit ;  and  the  said  chirurgeons  in  every  of  their  limits 
to  join  with  the  searchers,"  etc.  Bacon  says,  "That  Every 
of  them  is  carried  swiftly  by  the  Highest  Motion."  Jeremy 
Taylor  writes,  "so  is  God  not  dishonored  when  we  suppose 
him  in  every  of  his  creatures." 


XLIII 
EVIDENCE  AS  A  VERB 

Evidence  as  a  verb  is  recognized  by  the  Century  Dictionary, 
with  quotations  from  William  Bradford,  Tillotson,  Huxley  and 
Youmans,  and  S.  Dowell.  Webster's  International  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  citing  Milton  as  an  authority.  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Hale  and  Glanvill.  Worces- 
ter and  the  Standard  recognize  it.  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionary recognizes  it.  (luoting  AVilliam  Penn,  Jane  Austen, 
Young,  Lyell,  and  others. 

The  w'riter  has  seen  it  in  the  following  authors : 

Coleridge    1        "Rev.  Dr.  James  Orr    1 

Hallam     1       Henry  A.  Beers 1 

Professor  .Tolin  Earle   1       H.  W.  Mabie 3 

This  use  of  evidence  has  been  in  the  language  for  hundreds 
of  years.    jVIoreover,  it  is  used  by  eminent  authors  like  ]\Iilton 


9C  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

and  Coleridge,  as  Avell  as  by  "cultivated  men  who  are  neither 
specialists  nor  pedants,"  in  their  books  and  their  speeclies. 

Again  :  it  is  very  natural  for  a  noun  to  be  used  as  a  verb. 
This  disposes  of  one  objection  to  the  word. 

Evidence  as  a  vei-b  used  to  be  stigmatized  as  an  American- 
ism. This  charge  is  unwarranted  for  the  following  reasons: 
(1)  The  word  is  found  in  the  best  English  literature  before 
the  poor,  wretched  Americans  had  begun  to  pollute  "the  well 
of  English  undefiled";  (2)  most  of  the  authors  cited  above 
are  Englislnnen. 

Coleridge,  in  a  letter  dated  February  28,  1819,  says,  ' '  This 
was  most  strikingly  evidenced  in  the  coincidence  between  my 
lectures  and  those  of  Schlegel."  Hamilton  W.  Mabie  in  his 
volume  on  Shakespeare  says,  "In  the  following  year  his  grow- 
ing influence  was  evidenced  by  his  election  as  tester  of  the 
quality  of  bread  and  of  malt  liquors."  Hallam  in  his  Middle 
Ages  says,  "The  subsequent  recognition  of  almost  all  Ger- 
many, and  a  sort  of  possession  evidenced  by  public  acts,  which 
have  been  held  valid,"  etc. 

We  often  hear  the  word  used  as  a  verb  by  reputable  public 
speakers. 

XLIV 

EXECUTE  -  PUT  TO  DEATH 

Richard  Grant  White  ^  was  especially  severe  in  his  con- 
demnation of  execute  in  the  meaning  of  "put  to  death."  A 
law,  says  he,  may  be  executed,  but  not  a  man.  He  criticizes 
"a  well-known  historian"  for  using  the  word  in  connection 
with  Anne  Boleyn.  Another  violent  enemy  of  the  word  was 
Walter  Savage  Landor,  who,  to  use  the  phrase  of  Professor 
Lounsbury,  was  "fully  possessed  by  that  devil  of  derivation 
which,  unlike  the  evil  spirit  of  Scripture,  makes  happy  him 

1  iro)v/.v  null  Their  T.sr.s,  pp.  Ill,  112. 


EXECUTE  ^rUT  TO  DEATH  97 

iu  whom  it  dwells  and  vexes  only  the  souls  of  those  with  whom 
he  comes  in  contact."  Genung^  says,  "Excctdc  has  come  into 
such  frequent  misuse  as  applied  to  a  personal  object  in  the 
sense  of  put  to  death,  that  it  would  be  hard  to  displace. 
Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  the  criminal,  but  the  sentence,  that 
is  executed."  See  how  the  evil  spirit  of  derivation  can  tear 
such  noble  spirits  as  White,  Landor,  and  Genung;  but,  unlike 
the  spirit  in  the  scripture,  he  will  not  come  out  of  them  and 
go  into  the  herd  of  swine. 

Lounsbury-  defends  the  use  of  i.r<cutc  luider  discussion. 
He  says  all  through  his  chapters  on  language  that  it  is  the 
present  meaning  of  the  word,  not  its  etymology,  that  we  are 
to  consider  first  of  all.  The  Century  recognizes  the  word,  and 
quotes  Shakespeare.  Webster  recognizes  it  and  uses  the  phrase 
"to  execute  a  traitor."  The  Standard  and  Worcester  recog- 
nize it.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting 
Shakespeare.  The  Oxford  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  pas- 
sages from  Caxton,  Lord  Berners,  and  Hall,  the  chronicler. 
Lounsbury  says  that  execute  in  the  meaning  of  "put  to  death" 
has  been  in  continuous  use  ever  since  the  fifteenth  century. 
Oliphant^  cites  an  example  of  it  from  Warkv/orth's  Chronicle, 
about  A.D.  1470.    Latimer  uses  execution  frequently. 

To  the  authorities  named  above,  the  writer  can  add  the 
following : 

Shakespeare  *    ."!       Maoaulay   6 

Gibbon    1       Motley   4 

We  may,  then,  reasonably  conclude  that  the  word  has  had 
a  continuous  history  from  the  fifteenth  century  to  the  present 
day.  It  may  be  worth  adding  that  it  is  so  much  alive  today 
that  it  has  lent  its  ending  to  the  Greek  v/Ae/crpo    {electro)   to 

1  Outlines  o/  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  314. 
-  Tlie  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  43,  140. 
s  The  Xeic  English,  I,  32o. 

^  The  concordance  will  i5how  that  Shakespeare  uses  execute,  executed,  and 
executioner  frequently. 


98 


sir  DIES  IX  USAGE 


form  clcctro-cutc,  now  knocking  for  admission  at  the  gates  of 

the  language. 

The  autlior  has  not  watched  the  word  execution  closely  in 
the  literature  but  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  numberless 
authors  and  speakers  use  it.     "He  was  led  to  execution''-. 
who  would  hesitate  to  use  that  sentence  ?    If  execution  is  ri-lit 
execute  is  equally  so:  the  objection  to  one  holds  against °the 
other.     -Various  modes  of  execution'^-  "various  modes  of 
executing  criminals "-wlio  will  quarrel  with  these  phrases^ 
Gibbon    {History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire)  says,  "The  patrician  was  executed  on  the  ready  accu- 
sation of  treason,  and  the  wife  of  Alexander  driven  with 
Ignominy  from  the  palace,  and  banished  into  Africa. ' '    Macau- 
lay,  m  his  essay  on  Lord  Bacon,  says,  "The  unhappy  nobleman 
v^^^  executed."   JohnFiske  (Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neicjhhors) 
says,     Smith  describes  himself  as  kindly  treated  on  his  way  to 
the  scene  of  execution  and  after  his  rescue." 

XLV 

EXPERIENCE  AS  A  VERB 

^    In  1864,  Dean  Alf ord  ^  said, ' '  in  the  best  English,  experience 
IS  a  substantive,  not  a  verb  at  all."    If  the  Dean  had  read  the 
best  English  with  this  word  in  mind,  lie  would  not  have  spoken 
so  dogmatically;  he  could  easily  have  found  it  in  Goldsmith 
Gibbon,  Lamb,  Hallam,  Poe,  and  other  "best  Englisli"  writers 
Genung^  says,  "Better  not  use."     The  Century  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Southwell  and  Brovvning.     The  Stand- 
ard, Webster,  and  Worcester  all  recognize  it.°  The  Encyclo- 
pedic Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  The  Guardian.   >he 
New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,   with   passages   from 
Joseph  Butler,  Tyndall,  and  others. 

^The  Queen's  English,  edition  of  isor,,  p    252 
"Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  314. 


FEMALE  AS  A  NOUN  99 

If  names  and  numbers  count,  the  ease  is  proved  already' ;  but 
the  following  authors  may  ho  added : 

Steele     1  Tkilwer    1 

Hume    3  Macaulay  6 

Fielding   7  Hawthorne 1 

Goldsmith     2  Diekens 1 

Gibbon    ] :!  Matthew  Arnold 1 

Franklin     1  Holmes   1 

Lamb     2  Sir  Henry  Taylor 4 

Hallam     5  Lowell    2 

Grote    3  Walter  Bagehot 1 

Poe    3o  H.   A.   Beers 1 

Edward    Fitzgerald 1  T^ounsbiiry    2 

Carlyle     1  Bret  Harte 1 

Genung  advises  the  student  not  to  say  "experienced  much 
difficulty";  but  Charles  Lamb  says,  "The  particular  kindness 
.  .  .  which  I  have  experienced  from  you"  and  "a  certain 
absence  (of  mind)  which  some  of  your  friends  may  have 
experienced."  Carlyle  says,  "I  was  even  near  experiencing 
the  now  obsolete  sentiment  of  Friendship."  Gibbon  and  Poe 
are  very  partial  to  the  word. 

The  word  experience  as  a  verb,  though  a  little  old-fashioned, 
has  considerable  vogue  among  recent  writers  of  good  standing 
not  quoted  in  the  tables. 


XLYI 

FEMALE  AS  A  NOHN 

Professor  A.  S.  Hill  ^  said  in  1902,  "Female,  as  a  synonym 
for  woman,  is  no  longer  used  by  good  writers  except  as  an 
expression  of  contempt."  (He  cites  Miss  Fanny  Burney  and 
Scott  as  having  used  the  word  before  it  fell  into  disrepute.) 
For  numerous  eminent  contemporaries  of  Hill  who  used  the 

''^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1902,  p.  87. 


100  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

word  instead  of  woman,  see  the  lists  below  made  by  l)oth 
Loiinsbury  and  the  author  of  this  volume. 

Richard  Grant  White  ^  is  probably  the  most  vehement  oppo- 
nent of  the  word  female  in  the  sense  of  "woman."  He  says, 
"one  of  the  most  unpleasant  and  inexcusable  of  the  common 
perversions  of  language.  It  is  not  a  Briticism,  although  it  is 
much  more  in  vogue  among  British  writers  and  speakers  than 
among  our  owm."  (This  is  probably  true,  though  Motley, 
Holmes,  Cooper,  Hawthorne,  and  Price  Collier  are  fond  of 
the  word.)  White  continues:  "There  is  no  lack  of  what  is 
called  authoritative  usage  during  three  centuries  for  this  mis- 
use of  female.  But  this  is  one  of  those  perversions  which  are 
justified  l)y  no  example,  however  eminent.  .  .  .  when  a 
woman  calls  herself  a  female,  she  merely  shares  her  sex  with 
all  her  fellow-females  throughout  the  brute  creation." 

Quackenbos  saj^s,-  "is  universally  condemned  as  'one  of 
the  most  unpleasant  and  inexcusable  perversions  of  lan- 
guage.' "  Here  Quackenbos  quotes  White  approvingly.  Her- 
riek  and  Damon ^  say,  "good  use  now  condemns  it  as  a  vul- 
garism." Genung  says,*  "not  to  be  used  for  ivoman."  Some 
of  the  dictionaries  do  not  recognize  it  in  the  meaning  of 
"woman"  but  of  the  whole  genus  of  sex  provided  with  ovaries. 
The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Now  commonly  avoided 
by  good  writers  except  with  contemptuous  implication. ' '  This 
authority  quotes  Wycliffe,  Shakespeare,  Steele,  and  Strutt, 
but  no  recent  authors.  The  Pall  Mall  Gazette  says,  "Word  of 
opprobrium. ' ' 

It  might  seem  that  the  poor  word  has  uo  friends  at  court. 
The  Century,  however,  defines  it  as  meaning  woman,  quoting 
Mandeville  and  Shakespeare  but  no  modern  authors,  though 
the  word  ran  riot  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The  Standard 
Dictionary  says,  "A  person  or  animal  of  the  female  sex." 

1  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  179,  ISO. 
^Practical  lihctoric,  ISOfi,  p.  2:?4. 
^Ncic  Composition  and  Rhctofic,  p.  250. 
*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1000.  p.  ,'31."). 


FEMALE  AS  A  NOUX  101 

This  is  certainly  faint  praise.  In  1908.  however,  Lounsbury  ^ 
defended  the  word  very  ardently.  In  his  latest  book  on  lan- 
guage, he  gives  the  following  facts  as  to  the  use  of  female  iu 
the  literature : 

Used  by  Wycliffe. 

Used  by  Shakespeare  eleven  times. 

Used  occasionally  by  Fletcher  and  by  Massinger. 

Used  at  least  eight  times  by  Richard  Steele. 

Used  frequently  by  Richardson,  Fielding,  and  Smollett. 

Used  by  Charles  Lamb  quite  frequently  and  apj^lied  to  his 
sister. 

Used  by  Fanny  Burney  of  the  Princess  Royal. 

Used  by  Scott  twelve  times  in  one  book. 

Used  by  Bulwer  very  often ;  fourteen  times  in  Rienzi. 

Used  by  Dickens  thirty-three  times  in  Piclivick  Papers. 

Used  by  Thackeray  twenty-one  times  in  Vajufy  Fair. 

Used  by  Irving,  Disraeli,  Hawthorne,  George  Eliot,  and 
Trollope. 

Used  by  Charles  Reade  at  least  twenty-one  times  in  one 
book. 

Used  by  Jane  Austen  speaking  of  herself. 

Used  by  Elizabeth  Barrett  Browning. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  in  the  following : 

Seven  Sages 1      Sterne    1 

Shakespeare     5      Goldsmith 3 

Pope   1      Gibbon     2 

Matthew  Prior    2      Lamb     !) 

Addison    16       Franklin     1 

Swift    3      Hallani   1 

Fielding    15      Leigh  Hunt   1 

Smollett    12      Coleridge    1 

Sheridan    1      Irving    1 

Jane  Austen   3      Scott    18 

Dr.  Johnson 1      Cooper    21 

Boswell     7      Milman     2 

ir/ic  h-taiiilurd  of  Ut^dijc  in  English,  pp.  212-239. 


102  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Po8    9  Holmes    7 

Kingsley     1  Bulwer    6 

Dean  Trench   2  Motley    7 

Sir  William  Hamilton 1  Lowell     1 

Thackeray    8  George   Meredith    8 

Dickens    19  Price  Collier   5 

Hawthorne 2  H.  N.   Hudson 1 

Macaulay    2  Frederic  Harrison    1 

Browning 1  Stevenson 1 

The  last  six  authors  start  the  word  pretty  well  into  our 
own  day. 

The  figures  in  the  table  tally  with  Lounsbury's  in  showing 
that  the  word  was  a  popular  one  with  Dickens,  Thackeray,  and 
Bulwer.  We  have  seen  from  Lounsbury  that  the  word  was 
quite  strong  in  Steele ;  the  table  shows  that  it  was  used  by 
Pope,  Prior,  Addison,  and  Swift — showing  that  it  was  a  word 
of  good  repute  in  the  Augustan  Age  of  our  literature. 

Again :  we  have  seen  that  the  word  has  good  American 
usage  in  its  favor,  though  it  has  never  had  as  great  vogue  in 
America  as  in  England. 

Query:  (1)  When  did  the  word  fall  into  contempt  as 
alleged  by  Hill  and  others  quoted  in  the  foregoing  para- 
graphs ?  (2)  Why  all  this  prejudice  against  female  as  a  noun  ? 
As  an  adjective  it  seems  to  have  no  enemies :  we  even  tolerate 
Female  Institutes,  Female  Orphan  Asylums,  Female  Colleges, 
though  these  phrases  are  totally  illogical.  (3)  Suppose  we  are 
writing  tales  after  the  manner  of  Irving  or  Addison  and 
should  wish  to  speak  of  a  poor,  pitiable  person  of  the  female 
sex  and  of  unknown  age, — viewing  her  from  a  distance — what 
word  could  we  use  if  not  female f  For  instance,  "Near  the 
altar,  at  the  far  end  of  the  cathedral,  I  could  barely  discern  a 

poor  shivering  ,  whom  at  first  I  took  to  be  the  aged 

widow  of  the  old  sexton,  but  who  proved  to  be  his  daughter 
just  passing  into  her  early  maidenhood."  Would  "woman" 
do  for  the  gap  in  this  sentence  ?  Certainly  a  word  that  fills 
a  need  in  the  language  should  not  be  ostracized;  we  may  avoid 


FEMALE  AS  A  NOUN  103 

it  AvlieiK'Vcr  i^ossible,  but  should  not  drive  it  out  of  the 
language. 

Those  who  call  fctnalc  a  perversion  of  language  or  a  vul- 
garism are  setting  up  their  own  private  judgment  against  the 
usage  of  the  great  authors.  While  the  author  holds  no  brief 
for  this  word,  he  thinks  it  is  much  maligned  and  misrepre- 
sented by  some  writers  of  schoolbooks  and  some  vehement 
verbalists. 

To  prove  that  female  should  not  be  driven  from  the  lan- 
guage, we  may  quote  a  sentence  from  Maeaulay :  ' '  Though  in 
families  the  number  of  males  and  females  differs  widely,  yet  in 
great  collections  of  human  beings  the  disparity  almost  disap- 
pears."   What  other  word  could  Maeaulay  have  used? 

The  tables  show  that  this  word  has  declined  in  popularity 
since  about  1875.  This  is  possibly  due  to  the  hostility  of  the 
women  of  the  higher  classes,  who  resent  being  called  females. 
Probably  they  and  their  teachers  have  been  influenced  by 
Kichard  Grant  White  and  others,  who  have  told  them  that 
this  use  of  the  word  put  them  on  a  plane  with  she-cats,  she- 
dogs,  and  other  creatures  of  the  brute  creation. 

Goldsmith  {Deserted  Village)  says: 

As  some  fair  female,  unadorned  and  plain, 
Secure  to  please,  etc. 

What  other  word  could  be  used  in  this  passage? 

Addison  in  The  Gueirdian  says,  "In  short,  there  was  not  a 
female  within  ten  miles  of  them  that  was  in  possession  of  a 
gold  watch,  a  pearl  necklace,  or  a  piece  of  Mechlin  lace,  but 
they  examined  her  title  to  it."  Here  femede  includes  both 
grown  women  and  half-grown  girls.  Gibbon  in  his  Decline 
and  Fall  says,  "Zenobia  is,  perhaps,  the  only  female  whose 
superior  genius  broke  through  the  servile  indolence  imposed 
on  her  sex  by  the  climate  and  manners  of  Asia."  Would 
woman  be  correct  in  this  sentence?  Milman  says,  "In  all 
Arabian  tribes,  the  brother  is  most  deeply  wounded  by  an 


104  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

outrage  on  the  chastity  of  the  females."  Here  we  see  that  the 
word  refers  to  all  of  the  female  sex  that  could  possibly  be 
brutally  attacked. 

Those  who  wish  to  drive  this  word  out  of  the  language 
would  compel  us  to  use  several  words  to  express  our  meaning 
in  sentences  like  those  quoted  above. 


XLVII 

FIRST  TWO  OB  TWO  FIRST? 

The  phrases  first  two  and  two  first  are  typical  of  a  group 
composed  of  the  ordinal  and  the  cardinal ;  which  should  be 
placed  first? 

We  may  premise  by  saying  that  first  two  is  much  more 
common  both  in  polite  speech  and  in  literature,  so  common 
that  we  need  not  raise  any  question  as  to  its  correctness.  As 
to  the  other  locution,  however,  a  good  many  earnest  people 
have  always  had  serious  doubts.  But  both  have  been  called 
in  question  by  an  eminent  grammarian.     See  below. 

Genung,^  while  preferring  first  two,  does  not  attack  the 
other.  Dean  Alford  tells  us  that  he  was  criticized  for  using 
three  first  gospels;  but  he  not  only  used  it  regularly  in  his 
books  but  also  defended  it  valiantly  in  his  Queen's  English.- 
Baskervill  and  SewelP  and  Lounsbury^  say  that  tivo  first  is 
not  only  as  correct  as  first  two  but  older  in  the  language.  For 
tivo  first,  Baskervill  and  Sewell  cite  Addison,  Smollett,  Cow- 
per,  Gibbon,  and  Ruskin.  Lounsbviry  cites  Milton,  Pope, 
Byron,  Johnson,  Gibbon,  Burke,  Defoe,  and  Moore. 

»  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  315. 

*Pp.  145  ff. 

^English  Grammar,  pp.  308,  309. 

*Thc  Standard  of  Usage  in  Eni/lisli,  iip.  125-134,  144. 


FIFST  TWO  OR  TWO  FIRST?  105 

The  -writer  lias  recorded  the  following  passages  in  which 
the  iwo  first  locution  is  used: 

Jeremy  Taylor    1       Macaulay   1 

Addison    12       Dean  Trench   4 

Dr.   Johnson    2       Stopford    Brooke 1 

Dr.  Hugh  Blair    7        lirowning     1 

Gibbon     1       W.  D.  Whitney 1 

Thomas  Warton    2       George    Eliot    2 

Coleridge     ■•      Poe    1 

Southey    1      William  Minto 7 

Lamb 4       Saintsbury  2 

William  Hazlitt    6       W.  E.  Gladstone   1 

Jane  Austen   2       Tennyson    1 

Christopher  Xortli   1       Kingsley     1 

Landor   1       William  Morris 1 

Hallam     4       Dean   Stanley    1 

Sir  William  Hamilton 1       W.  W.  Skeat 2 

Matthew  Arnold 1 

Combining  the  three  lists,  we  see  that  the  locution  two  first 
has  a  continuous  history  in  the  literature  from  the  days  of 
Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor  to  the  present.  On  the  lists  we 
find  scholars,  great  prose  stylists,  poets,  and  faithful  guardians 
of  language.  Some  conscientious  doubters  wall  be  reassured 
when  they  see  the  names  of  Addison,  Burke,  and  Landor; 
some  when  they  find  the  names  of  Ruskin,  Gibbon,  and 
Arnold ;  others,  at  seeing  Dr.  Blair  and  Minto,  writers  on 
style  and  purity;  Trench,  Alford,  Whitney,  Dr.  Johnson,  and 
Lounsbury,  famous  students  of  English. 

A  reasonable  inference  from  the  tables  is  that  two  first,  etc., 
are  much  stronger  in  England  than  in  America ;  indeed,  that 
they  might  almost  be  called  literary  Briticisms. 

It  was  said  above  that  both  tivo  first  and  first  two  have  been 
called  in  question.  Bain,'^  the  eminent  Scotch  grammarian, 
after  quoting  seven  first  from  Gibbon,  says,  "This  is  hardly 
to  be  imitated;  no  more  can  we  commend  'the  first  seven' 

''■Composition  Grammar,  p.  306. 


106  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

centuries!"  "Better  avoid  the  form  altogether,"  says  Bain, 
"and  say,  'For  seven  centuries  (from  the  first)  the  history 
was  a  succession  of  triumphs.'  "  What  an  awkward  and 
circuitous  expression,  merely  to  avoid  two  locutions  well  estab- 
lished in  the  language !  If  Bain  does  this,  what  can  we  expect 
of  "the  lesser  grammarians"  who  have  been  gagging  and 
binding  us?  Is  it  not  time  to  appeal  unto  Caesar,  the  great 
authors  who  constitute  our  supreme  tribunal?  At  least 
thirty-five  of  them  have  handed  in  their  opinion  and  many 
others  could.be  cited.  As  t>T)ical  of  standard  usage  the  fol- 
lowing passages  may  be  added:  Matthew  Arnold  (On  Trans- 
lating Homer)  says,  "there  is  something  in  "style  which  the 
four  first  have  in  common,  and  which  the  last  is  without." 
Dean  Stanley  says,  ' '  In  the  Appendix  to  the  tivo  last  lectures 
Avill  be  found  various  original  documents."  Browning 
{Andrea  Bel  Sarto)  says, 

tlie  three  first  without  a  wife, 
Willie  I  have  mine. 

Lamb,  in  a  letter  to  Coleridge,  says,  "my  grandmother  .  .  . 
lived  housekeeper  in  a  family  the  fifty  or  sixty  last  years  of 
her  life."  W.  D.  Whitney  {Language  and  the  Study  of  Lan- 
guage) says,  "either,  as  in  the  case  of  the  two  last,  the  ety- 
mology is  trivial  or  obscure,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  first,  it 
is  within  reach  only  of  the  learned."  De  Quincey  {Lake 
Poets)  says,  "on  the  contrary,  the  first  two  occasions  on  which 
...  I  became  aware  of  his  possible  ill-humor  and  peevishness, 
were  so  public,"  etc. 

Those  who  say  first  two,  last  three,  etc.,  will  be  in  no  danger 
of  criticism,  while  the  use  of  tlie  other  locution  may  stir  up 
opposition  in  some  quarters,  though  it  has  very  high  authority. 


FIRSTLY  107 

XL  VIII 
FIRSTLY 

Of  firstly,  Webster  says,  "Improperly  used  for  first!'* 
Quackeiibos^  puts  it  in  his  list  of  barbarisms.  A.  S.  Hill" 
calls  it  a  vulgarism  and  puts  it  on  an  equality  with  muchly 
and  thusly,  although  these  two  have  no  standing  at  all  either 
in  literature  or  in  polite  society,  while  firstly  was  used  by  some 
of  his  most  distinguished  contemporaries  in  their  writings. 
Herrick  and  Damon  treat  it  as  a  barbarism.  It  is  condemned 
by  Genung  in  his  school  Rhetoric.^  De  Quineey  says,  "I  detest 
it."  Walter  Savage  Landor  said,  "It  is  not  English,"  al- 
though a  number  of  his  most  eminent  fellow-authors  used  it 
pretty  frequently. 

Witli  seven  such  authorities  arrayed  against  it,  the  chances 
for  firstly  would  seem  very  slight ;  but  there  are  some  that 
tolerate  it.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting 
Mary  Wortley  Montagu,  Scott,  and  Gladstone.  It  is  recog- 
nized by  the  Standard  Dictionary ;  by  the  Century,  quoting 
Sylvester's  Dii  Bartas.  Professor  0.  F.  Emereon  *  recognizes 
it  as  a  '-'coming  word."  Lounsbury,'^  that  stanch  friend  of 
abused  locutions,  defends  it.  In  refutation  of  De  Quineey 's 
charge  that  firstly  was  a  neologism,  Lounsbury  says  that  the 
word  goes  back  to  the  sixteenth  century.  (The  writer  may  add 
here  that  it  is  used  by  Hey  wood  in  1562.)  He  goes  on  to  say 
tliat  it  lias  been  used  to  some  extent  in  every  century  from  the 
sixteentli  to  the  present.  He  cites  the  following  authors  as 
using  it :  Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu,  Byron,  Scott,  Dickens, 
Charlotte  Bronte,  Thackeray.  Kingsley,  Trollope,  Carlyle, 
Gladstone,  Kipling.    It  is  recognized  by  Matzner,  the  eminent 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  ISOfi,  p.  2.'!1. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  2.'57. 

3  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  315. 

*  Histonj  of  the  English  Lanejuage,  p.  2CS. 

^Thc  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  116-118,  119. 


108  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

German  grammarian   and  etymologist ;  by   Henry  Bradley/ 
the  distinguished  English  lexicographer;  and  by  Worcester's 
Dictionary.     It  is  used  by  Jespersen,  the  eminent  English 
scholar,  who  of  course  regards  it  as  good  English. 
The  author  has  seen  firstly  in  the  following : 

Byron    1       Charlotte   Bronte    2 

Dickens 8       Eneye.  Brit.   (11th  ed.) 1 

Sir  William   Hamilton    3       George   Meredith    1 

Churton  Collins 2 

The  writer  has  seen  no  case  in  American  literature ;  but 
O.  F.  Emerson,-  one  of  our  best  scholars,  says  of  it,  "A  good 
example  of  a  word  even  now  in  the  process  of  change  is  the 
adverb  first,  wiiich,  under  the  influence  of  secondly,  thirdly, 
and  others  of  the  series,  constantly  tends  to  become  firstly/' 

The  scholar  need  not  be  told  that  Professor  Emerson  in  the 
foregoing  paragraph  is  discussing  analogy ;  but,  for  the  benefit 
of  some  not  so  well  informed,  it  may  be  added  that  it  is  per- 
fectly natural,  or  analogical,  for  first  to  develop  the  adverbial 
ending  -ly  so  long  associated  with  numerous  adverbs  of  its  class. 

Two  facts  should  be  clearly  stated  in  connection  with  firstly: 
(1)  It  is  less  used  by  reputable  speakers  and  standard  authors 
than  first.  (2)  Although  firstly  has  some  very  high  authority, 
it  is  not  thoroughly  established,  especially  in  American 
literature. 

The  following  passages  Avill  show  how  reputable  authors 
use  the  word:  Byron,  writing  to  his  Avife,  says,  "I  burned 
your  last  note  for  two  reasons :  firstly,  it  was  written  in  a 
style  not  very  agreeable ;  and  secondly  ..."  Churton  Collins 
(Studies  in  Shalrspeare)  says,  '"Firstly,  he  must  have  a  fine 
ear  for  rhythm,  and  thorough  knowledge  of  Elizabethan  pros- 
ody."  Sir  William  Hamilton  says,  '^ Firstly,  that  the  eol- 
legial  body  (Fellows  and  Head)  was  not  in  general  consti- 
tuted by  capacity  and  learning." 

1  The  Making  of  Emjlish,  p.  l.-Jf). 
^History  of  tht  EiKjIiah  Lumjuaye,  p.  208. 


GOTTEN  109 


XLIX 

FOREIGN   PLUEALS  ANGLICIZED 

In  discussing  mcmordndums,  Carpenter/  the  grammarian, 
expresses  the  hope  that  words  like  monorcnidum,  bandit,  etc., 
will  soon  take  on  English  plurals  exclusively.  No  doulit 
the  wretched  children  in  our  schools  Mill  shout  his  praises. 

While  thinking  over  such  matters,  the  writer  saw  ren- 
dezvouses in  Dean  Swift  and  scricscs  in  Dr.  Johnson.  Some 
may  welcome  these  forms  and  the  facts  given  in  connection 
with  mcnionnidunis  as  prognosticating  a  movement — however 
slow — in  the  direction  of  ridding  our  grammars  of  the  long 
list  of  foreign  plurals  that  constitutes  such  a  bugbear  in  the 
schoolroom.  How  long  sliall  our  children  groan  under  tliis 
burden  ?  How  long  shall  errata,  criteria,  reidii,  genera,  and 
other  jaw-breaking  foreign  plurals  drive  our  children  to  mad- 
ness? Even  our  great  Prayer  Book  compilers  wrote  in  des- 
peration, "Cherub/>»s  and  seraph/jH.v  continually  do  cry"; 
and  the  children  may  well  do  likewise. 


GOTTEN 

Some  years  ago,  gotten  came  under  the  ban  of  some  lexi- 
cographers and  some  professors  of  rhetoric.  The  present 
writer,  not  having  studied  the  word  closely,  was  affected  by 
this  clamor  and  adopted  got  to  the  exclusion  of  gotten.  Others 
may  have  had  a  like  experience. 

Webster  and  Worcester  both  call  gotten  "obsolescent." 
A.  S.  Hill-  says,  "no  longer  in  good  use  in  England.     In 

^  Prhiciplrs  of  English  Grommar,  p.  56. 

^  Brri'imunfift  n}  'RTirtor'tc  and  Compofiifiini,  1002,  p.  147.    .. 


110  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

America  it  is  sometimes  found  iu  authors  of  repute,  but  the 
current  of  the  best  usage  is  against  it,"  Baskervill  and 
Sewell/  generally  safe  in  their  statements,  say,  "The  form 
gotten  is  little  used,  got  being  the  preferred  form."  The  New 
English  (Oxford)  Dictionary  says  got  {gotten),  and  adds: 
"In  England  the  form  gotten  is  almost  obsolete  except  dia- 
leetically,  being  superseded  by  got;  in  IT.  S.  literature  gotten 
is  still  very  common,  although  "Webster,  1864,  gives  it  as 
obsolescent. ' '  A  well-known  American  professor  of  literature 
is  quoted  as  saying  recently  that,  in  England,  gotten  is  almost 
as  obsolete  as  putten.  This  is  utterly  preposterous.  Put- 
ten  has  been  obsolete  for  hundreds  of  years,  but  gotten  is 
found  in  some  of  the  best  books  published  in  England  in 
the  last  few  years,  and  is  recognized  as  better  than  got  by 
several  recent  grammarians  of  Great  Britain.  (See  list 
below.) 

In  1776  George  Campbell  defended  gotten,  preferring  it  to 
got.  Richard  Grant  White,-  usually  very  prone  to  attack  any 
word  at  all  ciuestionable,  makes  a  strong  argument  for  it  and 
uses  it  in  his  books.  The  Century  recognizes  it,  with  passages 
from  the  Bible,  Baker,  Sidney,  and  John  Evelyn.  The  Stand- 
ard says,  "Got  or  gotten.'^  Lounsbury"  in  his  two  books  on 
language  puts  it  as  one  of  the  participles  of  get.  In  addition 
to  the  champions  named  above,  the  following  scholars  recognize 
it  in  their  grammars,  or  other  books : 

First  choice :  Richard  Morris,  Alexander  Bain,  Whitney, 
C.  P.  Mason,  John  Earle ;  second  choice :  Carpenter,  Meikle- 
john,  Krapp,  and  0.  F.  Emerson. 

Kittredge  and  Farley"*  in  1913  said,  "Many  good  speakers 
also  use  it  instead  of  the  past  participle  got,  but  got  is  the 
accepted  modern  form." 

1  Etif/lish  Grammar,  p.  159. 
^  Words  and  Their  Uses,  p.  US. 

'^  History  of  the  Erifjlish  J.anf/iione,  pp.  .•^.Sn.  .S37.  aO.S,  and  The  standard  of 
Vsa(/e  in  Eiif/Ush,  p.  01. 
*  Advanced  English  Orammar,  p.  29:!,  note  1. 


GOTTEN 


111 


Gotten  is  used  l)v  the  followiiifT: 


"William  Caxton    1 

William  Dunbar  1 

Malory    8 

King   James   Bible  ' 20 

Hugh   Latimer    11 

Prayer  Rook   2 

Francis   Bacon    11 

Ben  Jonson    1 

Shakespeare 5 

Sir   Thomas  Bro-wne 1 

■Rolls  House  MSS 1 

Sackville     1 

Marlowe   4 

Spenser     2 

Lyly 1 

Fuller     r, 

Jeremy    Taylor     1 

Clarendon     2 

Defoe    S 

Swift    2 

John    Evelyn 1 

Dr.   Johnson    1 

Fielding   4 

Lamb    2 

George  Campbell    6 


Scott     2 

Christopher    North 1 

Poe    2 

Hawthorne     1 

Kingsloy     2 

Thomas  Huglies   3 

Thomas   Moore 1 

Swinburne     4 

Wendell   Phillips    1 

Eiehard    Grant    White 3 

Morris     2 

W.    D.   Whitney 7 

H.    W.    Mabie 1 

Thomas  Nelson   Page 4 

Dean  Church   1 

Browning     1 

Stevenson     3 

Sidney  Lanier 1 

Dean    Trench    6 

Stopford    Brooke 1 

John    Earle    3 

John    Burroughs    1 

G.  W.  Cable    1 

Sir   Henry  Taylor 1 


In  addition  to  the  dictionaries  and  the  eminent  gram- 
marians quoted  above  as  supporting  gotten,  we  have  cited 
over  fifty  ' '  reputable  authors ' '  that  have  been  using  the  form 
for  five  hundred  years  down  to  the  present.  How  could  it  be 
called  obsolescent? 

Another  thing  in  favor  of  gotten  is  euphony ;  it  is  often 
less  abrupt  and  less  jerky  in  the  sentence.  For  instance,  take 
a  passage  from  the  Psalms  ^ :"  his  right  hand,  and  his  holy  arm, 
hath  gotten  him  the  victory"  (King  James  version)  ;  "With 
his  own  right  hand  and  with  his  holy  arm  hath  he  gotten 

^  Cruden  probablj-  omitted  fifty  or  more  cases. 
2Ps.  08.1  in  Bible;  98.2  in  Prayer  Book. 


112  STUDIES  I.\   USAGE 

himself  the  victory"  (Prayer  Book  version).  Change  gotten 
to  got  in  these  passages  and  note  tlie  loss  in  cadence  and  melody. 
Are  not  both  passages  seriously  injured? 

In  polite  society  in  large  parts  of  America,  the  longer  form 
has  wide  vogue  in  spite  of  some  popular  dictionaries. 

On  the  list  of  authors  using  gotten,  we  find  White,  Trench, 
Whitney,  and  Earle,  four  faithful  guardians  of  the  language. 
Whitney,  who  uses  it  at  least  seven  times  in  his  books,  had 
no  doubt  heard  it  all  his  life  in  New  England ;  the  writer  has 
heard  it  all  his  life  in  Virginia.  These  facts  would  indicate 
that  the  form  is  strong  in  the  old  states  of  America. 

Hill,  as  said  above,  tells  us  in  1902  that  gotten  is  no  longer 
in  good  use  in  England.  This  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  several 
eminent  recent  grammarians  of  England  and  Scotland  give  it 
full  recognition  and  that  it  was  used  by  Swinburne,  Thomas 
Hughes,  Dean  Trench,  William  ]Morris,  Tliackeray,  Dean 
Church,  Stopford  Brooke,  Professor  John  Eai-le,  Browning, 
Robert  Louis  Stevenson,  and  Charles  Kingslcy,  all  contem- 
poraries of  Professor  Hill.  As  to  Hill's  statement  that  gotten 
is  "sometimes"  used  by  authors  of  repute  in  America,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  table  above,  in  which  eight  of  Hill's 
American  contemporaries  are  cited  as  using  it  more  or  less 
frequently. 

Kittredge  and  Farley,  quoted  above,  were  nearer  right  than 
Hill.  Their  statement,  with  a  slight  modification,  will  put 
the  case  succinctly  and  exactly:  "Many  good  speakers  (and 
authors)  also  use  it  instead  of  the  past  participle  got,  l)ut 
got  is  the  accepted  modern  form." 

Stevenson  in  the  Master  of  BaUantrae  says,  "  'Of  course, 
this  is  midsummer  madness?'  said  Sir  William,  so  soon  as  we 
were  gotten  out  of  hcaiing. "  Again,  in  his  Silverado  Squat- 
ters, he  says,  "The  sun  had  now  gotten  much  higher."  Would 
got  be  tolerated  in  either  of  these  sentences? 


GEADUATE  AS  AX  ACTIVE   VEHB  113 

LI 

GRADUATE  A8  AX  ACTIVE  VERB 

The  phrase  "Brown  graduated"  was  ou  the  forbidden  list 
of  William  Cullen  Bryant  while  editing  the  Evening  Post: 
every  writer  must  say  "was  graduated."  Genung/  though 
not  so  outspoken,  does  not  like  the  first-named  phrase. 

The  Century  recognizes  the  active  form,  quoting  the  London 
Monthly  Magazine  (1808).  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionaiy  rec- 
ognizes it,  quoting  Macaulay.  Webster  recognizes  it.  quoting 
Latham  and  ]Macaulay.  The  Standard  and  Worcester  recog- 
nize it. 

Out  of  thirty-four  articles  in.  the  E ncyclopeedia  Britannica, 
thirty-three  use  graduated,  which  shows  that  the  active  form 
is  used  regularly  in  England.  The  New  English  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Southey,  Manyat,  the  Times,  and  some 
minor  writers. 

Appleton's  Encyclopadia  of  Biography,  however,  uses  the 
passive  form  in  thirty-nine  out  of  forty  articles  examined; 
but  this  may  be  due  to  the  preference  of  the  editors-in-chief, 
as  American  usage  is  certainly  not  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of 
the  passive. 

As  all  the  passages  the  writer  has  noted  are  unsigned,  we 
may  borrow  from  tlie  dictionaries.  Macaulay  is  quoted  as 
saying.  "He  was  brought  to  their  bar,  and  asked  where  he  had 
graduated."  Latham  says:  "He  graduated  at  Oxford." 
"Wliere  did  you  graduate?"  is.  it  would  seem,  the  regular 
academic  phrase  in  America,  and  no  doubt  in  England. 

^Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  316. 


114  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

LII 

GRATEFUL-  PLEASANT 

I  presume  that  you  have  niauy  titles  wliereof  .some  are  more  firnieful  to 
j'our  ears  than  others.      (Btilwcr.) 

The  word  grateful  as  used  by  ]3uhver  in  this  sentence  lias 
been  questioned  by  Genung  '  in  his  well-known  textbook  for 
schools.  He  says, ' '  sometimes  unnecessarily  used  for  '  ])leasant ' 
— a  Latin  meaning."  The  writer  had  always  been  accustomed 
to  the  phrase  "grateful  odor,"  and  had  no  idea  that  it  was 
open  to  question. 

Worcester  and  the  Standard  recognize  .(//•(:/^f/)(^  =  pleasant. 
The  Century  recognizes  it,  quoting  Shirley,  Pope,  and  Ban- 
croft. The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  pas- 
sages from  Pope,  Churchill,  Goldsmith,  Scott,  Argyll,  and 
others  less  known.  Webster  recognizes  it,  quoting  Pope.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  a  quotation  from 
Longfellow. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  w^ord  once  each  in  the  writings  of 
Thomas  Burnet  and  of  Bulwer ;  twice  in  Milman ;  seven  times 
in  Bryant.  L^7?Y7ra<e/)ti  =  unpleasant  occurs  once  in  Poe,  H.  N. 
Hudson,  Longfellow,  and  Arlo  Bates.  Hudson  says,  ' '  But  the 
sorrow  can  hardly  be  ungraieful  to  us,  that  has  such  noble 
comforters  as  Antonio's." 

The  usage  of  great  English  authors  from  the  Elizabethan 
period  to  our  own  day  proves  that  the  locution  has  had  wide 
vogue  in  England  ;  the  names  of  Bancroft,  Hudson,  and  Bryant 
prove  its  use  in  New  England.  Poe,  though  a  cosmopolitan, 
represents  ' '  the  Virginia  dialect. ' ' 

1  Outli)irs  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  .S16,  . 


GROW  SMALL  115 

LIII 

GROW  SMALL 

Genimg,  in  an  earlier  edition  ^  of  liis  school  textbook,  con- 
demned the  phrase  groiv  small,  but,  under  the  advice  of 
friends  and  critics,  withdrew  his  opposition.  As  Genung's 
original  position  probably  represented  the  feeling  of  others, 
and  as  his  first  edition  no  doubt  influenced  a  good  many  people 
against  the  locution,  it  is  worth  discussing. 

The  vei-b  grow  began,  about  .\.d.  1440,  to  take  on  the  mean- 
ing of  "become,"  supplanting  the  old  word  icax,  so  familiar 
to  Bible  readers  and  to  those  who  have  sung  tlie  line, 

Till  moons  shall   icax  ami  wane  no  more. 

"His  eye  ivaxed  not  dim",  "he  ira.red  rich,"  etc.,  used  to 
be  common  in  the  language  and  literature.  Wax  became  obso- 
lescent and  groiv  took  its  place.  As  early  as  the  period  1558- 
1593,  we  find  the  phrase,  "Money  is  groiving  due."  (Tarl- 
ton's  Jests.) 

The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  groiv  in  the  meaning  of 
" become."  In  polite  circles  we  constantly  hear  such  phrases 
as  "grow  rich",  "grow  fat",  "growing  thinner  and  thinner", 
"growing  younger  and  younger",  "growing  beautifully  less," 
etc. 

In  the  King  James  Bible,  we  find,  "they  doubted  where- 
unto  this  would  grow."  In  the  Greek  version  this  groiv  is 
represented  by  7iyvo/.tat  (gignomai),  which  means  " become "= 
Latin  fieri.  Beza's  Latin  text  has  evasurum  f.§sef  =  would 
become,  turn  out.  The  German  Bible  has  iverden  ivollte, 
where  of  course  werelen  means  "to  become."  By  these  pas- 
sages we  wish  to  show  that  grow  in  the  English  Bible  means 
"tol)ecome"  (1611). 

^e)utUn('.'<  of  h'hitorir,  1R93,  p.   ?A5. 


116  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Grow  small,  grow  ihlii,  grow  wi.s< ,  etc.,  then,  are  analogical 
phrases,  in  which  grow  has  yiven  up  its  original  meaning  and 
has  become  a  copulative  verb  meaning  "become.*' 


LIV 

HAD  RATHER 

In  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  centuries,  had 
rather  was  in  great  vogue  in  our  literature.  In  1755,  however, 
Dr.  Johnson  in  his  dictionary  attacked  it  furiously,  calling  it 
"a  barbarism  of  late  intrusion  into  our  language."  (But  he 
used  it  once  in  Rasselas.)  About  tMcnty-five  j-ears  later, 
Sheridan  attacked  it  in  his  dictionary.  Another  very  warm 
opponent  was  Bishop  Lowth  (died  1787),  one  of  the  earliest 
defenders  of  the  purity  of  English  speech.  Of  course  the 
English  and  xVmericans  of  that  period  became  prejudiced 
against  had  rather;  whom  could  they  trust  in  matters  of 
English  if  not  their  lexicographers,  Johnson  and  Sheridan, 
and  their  pioneer  in  verbal  criticism,  the  great  bishop  of  Lon- 
don ?  At  this  very  time,  George  Campbell  was  a  distinguished 
scholar  and  theologian  in  Scotland.  In  his  Philosophy  of 
Rhetoric,  which  was  published  in  1776  and  has  exerted  an 
immense  influence,  he  condemned  had  rather  in  the  most 
unequivocal  manner. 

Webster,  in  his  dictionary,  joined  in  the  clamor  against 
had  rather,  and  the  phrase  really  had  no  friends  at  this 
period.  About  1867,  Richard  Grant  White, ^  the  most  ardent 
student  of  usage  among  the  literati  of  America,  and  Dean 
Alford,-  who  was  regarded  as  a  high  authority  by  thousands 
in  England,  made  a  practically  simultaneous  onslaught  upon 
had  rather. 


'  Words  and  Their  Uses,  18G7,  p.  417. 
9  The  QiwenS  EmjUsh,  1860,  pp.  94,  95. 


HAD  B A  THEE  117 

All  of  these  men  were  thoroughly  conscientious.  They 
were  also  zealous  and  jealous  for  the  purity  of  the  language. 
But  they  were  all  arguing  from  false  premises :  they  thought 
had  rather  was  wrong  because  they  could  not  explain  it  syn- 
tactically. As  they  could  explain  ivould  rather,  they  wished 
to  drive  had  rather  out  and  substitute  tvould  rather. 

At  last  the  skies  brightened  for  the  much-abused  had  rather. 
A.  S.  Hill/  professor  of  rhetoric  at  Harvard,  who  began  pub- 
lishing textbooks  in  1878,  admitted  that  had  rather  was  "as 
good"  as  ivoidd  rather.  He  was  a  friend  in  need  and  a  friend 
indeed.  About  this  time,  W.  J.  Rolfe  gave  it  a  helping  hand. 
In  his  edition  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice,"  he  says:  "Had 
rather  and  had  'b(tt(  r  are  good  English,  though  many  writers 
of  grammars  tell  us  that  we  should  say  would  rather,  etc., 
instead."  About  the  same  time  E.  A.  Abbott,^  the  great 
grammarian,  recognized  had  rather  as  a  good  idiom  and 
explained  it  syntactically.  Quaekenbos*  called  it  "idiomatic" 
but  anomalous."  (Are  not  most  idioms  anomalous?)  The 
Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  cpioting  Sidney,  Shake- 
speare, Dekker,  and  Cowper.  Webster  recognizes  it,  citing 
passages  from  tlie  King  James  Bible  and  Shakespeare.  Whit- 
ney, the  eminent  linguist,  in  his  Essentials  of  English  Gram- 
mar,^ recognized  had  rather  and  explained  its  idiomatic 
origin  (1885\.  This  was  of  course  a  great  help,  as  Whitney's 
opinion  would  have  great  weight  with  all  scholars  engaged 
in  writing  grammars  or  compiling  dictionaries.  Another 
strong  champion  of  had  rather  was  Fitzedward  Hall,  who, 
though  born  in  America,  spent  most  of  his  life  in  Eng- 
land and  knew  the  usage  of  both  countries  better  than 
most  men.  In  his  Modern  English  (1873)  and  in  his  articles 
in  the  learned  journals,  he  defended  had  rather  against  gram- 

^  Beginnings  of  RJictoric  and  Composition,  1902,  pp.  15,  16. 

2  0Irt  edition,  p.  1.32. 

-  Hoic  io  Parse,  p.  22.". 

*  Practical  Rhetoric,  1S9G,  p.  235. 

5  P.  219. 


118  STUDIES  IN   USAGE 

mariaiis  who  eoiideiniied  it  because  they  could  not  parse  it. 
The  New  English  Dictionary  defends  had  rather  and  refers  to 
Hall's  article  in  the  American  Journal  of  Philology,  vol.  II, 
pp.  281  ff.  This  dictionary  says,  "Idiomatic  but  late,"  quot- 
ing passages  from  the  Fusion  Letters,  Lord  Berners,  Sidney, 
and  Marryat.  By  "late"  the  New  English  Dictionary  means 
that  had  rathct  supplanted  some  earlier  locutions  occurring 
frequently  in  Chaucer,  Malory,  and  other  ancient  authors. 
In  1894,  Jespersen^  said,  "Had  rather  is  used  by  the  best 
authors,  by  Shakespeare  at  least  some  sixty  times,  while  would 
rather  is  comparatively  rare  in  his  writings."  He  also  quotes 
a  prominent  Dutch  scholar  as  saying  that  historically  the  had 
form  is  the  better.  In  1901,  Greenongh  and  Kittredge  -  de- 
fended had  rather  and  explained  it  syntactically.  In  1908, 
Lounsbury "  defended  it  strenuously.  About  the  same  time, 
Nesfield,^  the  well-known  grammarian,  put  it  among  "well 
established  idioms."  In  1913,  Kittredge  and  Farley^  in  their 
grammar  said,  "the  idiom  is  well  established." 

If  tlie  facts  stated  above  do  not  convince  the  doubters,  they 
would  not  be  persuaded  though  Shakespeare  and  Addison  rose 
from  the  dead  to  argue  with  them. 

The  influence  of  Johnson,  Lowtli,  Campbell  and  such  men 
lives  on.  Rieliard  Grant  "White's  books  are  still  published  in 
new  and  attractive  form,  carrying  conviction  to  the  layman. 
The  lukewarm  toleration  of  popular  textbooks  b}'  such  well 
known  men  as  Hill  and  Genung  affects  the  intelligent  masses 
TO  some  extent.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  statements 
of  our  great  scliolars  be  iterated  and  reiterated  in  volumes  like 
this.  Lounsbury,  for  instance,  in  his  able  defense  of  had 
rather  tells  us  that  it  is  used  "scores  of  times"  by  Shake- 
speare; at  least  fifteen  times  by  Fielding;  at  least  four  times 

'  Progress  in  Language,  p.  226,  note. 
=  ^Yords  and  Their  Ways  in  Knylish  SSpccch,  p.  205. 
"  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  2S1-289. 
*■  EngUsh  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  201. 
^Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  12r>. 


HAD  FATHER  119 

by  Jane  A^^sten;  at  least  seven  times  by  Oliver  Wendell 
Holmes — the  last  three  authors  using  it  in  spite  of  the  preju- 
dice against  it  created  by  the  eminent  scholars  named  at  the 
beginning  of  this  paragraph. 

The  reader  may  possibly  have  been  led  to  believe  that  had 
rather  is  not  older  than  Shakespeare ;  but  that  is  not  true. 
Some  scholars  tell  ns  that  it  originated,  "apparently"  or 
probably,  in  tlie  sixteenth  century ;  but  this  is  indefinite.  The 
earliest  case  the  present  writer  has  seen  is  in  Lord  Berners's 
translation  of  Froissart,  publislied  about  1523 ;  the  next,  in 
Ralph  Roister  Doistcr,  written  probably  about  1550.  It  had 
probably  been  in  colloquial  speech  before  1500.  Shakespeare 
uses  it  frequently ;  the  King  James  translators,  rarely.^  Had 
lever,  so  common  in  Chaucer,  survived  to  some  extent  in  the 
literature,  certainly  to  the  days  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  In  the 
Nut-Broivn  Maid  (about  1500)  we  read, 

yet  IkuJ  I  lever  than 
That   I  had  too  the  grenewod  goo,  alone,  a   banvssbyd  man. 

In  ]\Iore's  Heresies,  we  read,  "and  hael  lever  pay  for  it  to 
the  printer,  than  have  it  of  the  bishop  free." 

WotUd  rather  the  writer  has  seen  once  in  Chaucer,  had 
rather,  never.  Sir  Thomas  More  in  Heresies  says,  "then 
woidde  I  rather  have  used  such  moderation  as  I  speake  of." 
So  that  "me  were  lever",  "I  hadde  lever",  "I  had  lever", 
"I  Avould  rather"  are  presumably  all  older  than  I  hael  rather. 

Had  rather  can  be  found  in  the  following  authorities: 

Lord    Berners 1      Massinger     2 

Ealph  Eoister  Doister 2       Two  Noble  Kinsmen 2 

Thersrtes   1       Sir   Thomas  Browne 6 

Latimer    4      Beaumont  and  Fletcher 1 

Shakespeare  -    2^!       Marlowe     2 

King  James  Bible 2      Bacon    2 

1  Only  twice  as  far  as  the  present  writer  has  noticed. 

"  The  author  has  not  searched  Shakespeare,  but  recorded  the  cases  actually 
seen  In  his  re.Tding.     There  are  at  least  fiO  cases  of  it. 


120  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

Sidney    3  Cowper    1 

John    Lyly    3  Lamb    11 

Thomas  Randolph    1  Gaskell 2 

Baxter    1  Sir  Henry  Taylor 1 

Dry  den   1  Longfellow 2 

Steele    1  Holmes     1 

Johnson    1  Emerson   1 

Burke   1  Thackeray    1 

Jefferson    1  Browning     1 

John  Adams   2  Kittredge  and   Greenough 1 

This  is  not  a  very  strong  showing  for  four  hundred  years: 
it  shows  what  effect  vehement  attacks  have  upon  a  locution. 

The  attacks  made  upon  had  rather  led  some  of  the  best 
authors  to  take  refuge  in  the  use  of  had  better;  but  this  is  a 
miserable  substitute,  as  we  lose  the  meaning  carried  by  rather. 
Jefferson  fell  back  upon  would  rather:  he  was  no  doubt 
influenced  by  Campbell,  Webster,  and  others.  That  many 
authors  were  driven  off  from  the  phrase  under  discussion  can 
be  seen  from  the  table  above :  before  the  attacks  made  by 
the  scholars  named,  had  rather  shows  51  examples;  after  the 
attacks,  25  examples. 

How  any  man  reading  the  great  authors  could  join  in  the 
onslaught  upon  had  rather  is  amazing.  It  occurs  in  Shake- 
speare frequently ;  e.  g., 

I  had  rather  be  a  dog,  and  bay  the  moon, 
Than  such  a  Roman. 

Also  in  equally  familiar  passages  in  the  Bible:  "I  hael  rather 
be  a  doorkeeper  in  the  house  of  my  God,  etc.";  and  in  the 
Prayer  Book  version  of  the  same  psalm  (84:11),  where  it 
is  read  by  untold  thousands.  Dr.  Johnson,  though  he 
attacked  the  phrase,  used  it  in  Rasselas:  "This,"  said  the 
prince,  "  I  do  not  understand,  but  I  had  rather  hear  thee  than 
dispute.    Continue  thy  narration." 

Tn  America,  Henry  Clay  has  long  been  quoted  as  saying, 
"I  had  rather  be  right  than  be  president."    Both  had  rather 


HAVE  GOT  FOE  HAVE  121 

and  ivould  rather  are  used  in  polite  circles :  the  great  mass 
of  refined  people  will  use  the  old  phrases  in  conversation  even 
if  authors  are  timid  about  using  them. 

Colloquially,  in  easy  English,  we  often  say,  "I'd  rather." 
For  the  benefit  of  readers  that  have  not  ready  access  to  the 
books  in  which  had  rather  is  syntactically  explained,  the 
author  will  say :  One  word  that  baffled  all  the  early  gram- 
marians was  had;  they  did  not  imagine  that  it  could  be  a 
preterite  subjunctive  equivalent  to  would  hold  (consider). 
Again:  they  did  not  dream  that  rather  was  the  comparative 
degree  of  the  old  adjective  rathe,  so  common  in  earlier  periods 
of  English.  Now  we  know  that  the  sentence  "I  had  rather 
work  than  play"  means,  "I  should  hold  or  regard  working  a 
better  thing  than  playing." 


LV 

HAVE  GOT  FOB  HAVE 

In  some  books  and  among  some  good  teachers,  have  got  for 
have  has  no  standing.  Professor  A.  S.  Hill  ^  in  his  school 
Rhetoric,  says,  "Got  is  redundant  when  it  expresses  an  idea 
already  expressed  in  have."  Quackenbos-  calls  it  superfluous. 
Genung  ^  says,  ' '  not  to  be  used  with  have  in  the  sense  of  pos- 
session. .  .  .  When  used,  it  should  convey  the  sense  of  obtain- 
ing." Richard  Grant  White*  was  strong  in  his  condemnation 
and  gave  the  phrase  a  bad  name  with  many  people.  The  Cen- 
tury says,  "used  colloquially." 

If  left  to  the  purists  and  the  pedants,  this  locution  would  be 
left  no  ground  to  stand  on.  Let  us  turn  to  the  linguists  for 
their  opinions.    Kellner,^  the  English  scholar  of  Vienna,  says : 

1  Beginnincis  of  RJietoric  and  Composilion ,  p.  236. 
"Practical  Rhetoric,  1S96,  p.  235. 

3  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  316. 

4  TTo/v/.y  and  Their  Vxes,  pp.  117,  118. 
^Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax,  p.  229. 


122  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

"It  is  worth  remarking  that  Modern  English  has  produced  a 
sort  of  Preteritive  Verb  (Preterite  in  form  but  Present  in 
meaning)  similar  to  Ureek  6l8  +  Latin,  novi,  Old  English  wat, 
etc.,  namely  the  idiom  have  got  =  ha\e.  .  .  .  Very  frequent  in 
fconiliar  speech."^  Here  is  a  prominent  scholar,  an  expert 
in  English  syntax,  setting  forth  clearly  this  phrase  as  a  new 
development  in  the  English  language.  (He  uses  it  himself  in 
his  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Sgntax.) 

In  a  standard  volume"  of  which  Kellner  and  Henry  Bradley 
are  the  joint  revisers,  the  same  treatment  of  have  got  was 
inserted  by  these  scholars  in  1895,  though  Dr.  Richard  Morris 
did  not  have  it  in  the  original  edition. 

Jespersen"  puts  have  got  (=have)  among  the  phrases 
adopted  by  Shakespeare  from  the  vernacular.  So  that  we  have 
three  of  the  best  European  English  scholars  recognizing  this 
locution  and  one  of  tliem  using  it  himself  in  a  book. 
.  The  writer  may  add  that  he  has  not  seen  this  have  got  in 
Shakespeare,  though  he  may  use  it. 

Besides  being  recognized  by  Bradley,  Kellner,  and  Jesper- 
sen,  have  got  is  used  by  the  following  writers  and  speakers  of 
repute : 

Goldsmith     1  D.    G.   Miteliell 3 

Lamb 2  Ruskin    1 

Thomas  Hood 2  TTolmcs    2 

Carlyle    1  Sir   Henry    Taylor ] 

Thackeray    ;]  L.  Kellner   ] 

A.   H.   Clough 1  Dickens     ] 

Gladstone     ...  1 1 

If  names  count,  have  got  sliould  have  some  standing  and 
not  be  branded  as  a  vulgarism.  JMoreover,  it  is  used  too 
widely  in  polite  society  to  be  so  treated.  George  Eliot  uses 
it  frequently  in  conversations,  showing  that  she  considered 

'  Tlic  italics  arc  niiuc. 

~  Hintorical  Outlines  of  IJnr/lish  Accidrncc,  1003,  p.  267. 

"•  droictJi  and  structure  of  the  English  Lanyuafje,  p.  22.1. 


HAVE  GOT  FOE  HAVE  123 

it  good  colloquial  English,  though  she  is  not  in  the  list  of 
authors  cited  as  using  it  in  propria  persona.  Goldsmith  uses 
it  in  conversations :  ' '  Can  you  lie  three  in  a  bed  ?  No.  Then 
you  will  never  do  for  a  school.  Have  you  got  a  good  stomach  ? 
Yes.  Then  you  will  by  no  means  do  for  a  school."  Thack- 
eray uses  it  in  tlie  Roundabout  Papers,  which  are  written  in 
a  semi-colloquial  style.  Lamb  uses  it  in  the  conversational 
passages  of  his  Origin  of  Roast  Pig.  Donald  G.  Mitchell, 
in  his  Reveries  of  a  Bachelor  and  his  Dream  Life,  says:  "I 
have  got  a  quiet  farmhouse  in  the  country,''  and  "3'ou  know 
the  other  boy  has  got  no  father. ' ' 

Prominent  philologists  regard  have  got  as  worthy  of  expla- 
nation. A  fine  scholar  suggested  in  his  university  lecture 
room  that,  as  most  people  like  the  idea  of  possession,  English 
added  got  to  make  tliis  idea  more  vivid.  Dr.  C.  P.  G.  Scott. 
in  an  address  before  the  American  Philological  Association, 
recognized  "I  got  it"  (=1  have  it)  as  a  new  verb  phrase 
emerging  in  recent  English.  Those  two  scholars  did  not 
denounce  have  got  as  a  vulgarism. 

Going  back  to  the  opening  of  the  last  paragraph.  If  most 
people  like  the  idea  of  possession,  and  if  have  has  been  used 
so  much  as  an  auxiliary  that  the  idea  of  possession  has  faded 
considerably,  did  got  come  in  to  reinforce  the  have?  Pos- 
sibly this  is  the  psychology  of  the  phrase. 

It  is  worth  noting  that,  in  expressing  obligation  or  neces- 
sity, e.  g.,  "I've  got  to  go,"  got  seems  to  meet  with  less  objec- 
tion than  when  expressing  ownership. 

Dean  Alford,  who  draws  distinctions  between  dignified  and 
free-and-easy  discourse/  might  say,  "When  delivering  a 
serious  discourse,  I  say  have;  but,  when  talking  informally,  I 
say  have  got." 

1  The  Queen's  EnrjlisJi,  1866,  p.  49. 


124  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

LVI 

HEIGHTH  (HIGHTH)  FOIi  HEIGHT 

The  writer  has  heard  the  form  htighth  so  often  in  some  of 
the  okl  states  that  he  watched  it  in  the  literature. 

Most  of  the  dictionaries  call  it  obsolete  or  provineiax.  The 
New  English  Dictionary  says,  "The  -th  forms  are  still  affected 
by  some."  Lowell  says  that  it  is  often  heard  in  New  England ; 
the  writer  has  often  heard  it  from  refined  people  of  New  York 
and  Virginia.  It  would  be  a  provincialism  if  it  were  not  used 
in  so  many  parts  of  America  and  could  not  be  found  in  pretty 
recent  literature. 

Every  reader  of  Paradise  Lost  will  recall  several  cases  of 
highth  in  the  first  two  books ;  for  instance, 

No  wonder,   fallen   such   a   pernicious   highth. 

Again,  in  Samson  Agonistes: 

The  secret  wrested  from  me  in  her  higlitJi 
Of  nuptial  love  professed, 

Yet    towards    these,    thus   dignified,    thou    oft 
Amidst  their  highth  of  noon, 

It  is  found  in  Bacon,  Hakluyt,  Thomas  Warton,  and  Walter 
Savage  Landor,  The  last-named  author,  in  his  Imaginary 
Conversations,  says,  ''Midas  in  the  highth  of  prosperity  would 
have  given  his  daughter  to  Lycaon,"  etc. 

The  word  should  be  marked  "rare  in  the  literature";  but 
"obsolete  or  provincial"  is  too  drastic. 

II eighth  is  the  original  form;  height,  a  corruption  though 
now  more  usual. 


I  AM  MISTAKEN,  ETC.  125 

LVII 
I  AM  MISTAKEN,  ETC. 

Two  promineut  rhetorical  scholars '  in  tlieir  textbooks  con- 
demn "If  /  a)n  not  mistaken"  and  all  other  forms  of  this 
locntion,  and  say,  "If  I  mistake  not''  should  be  used.  These 
professors  of  rlietoric  "were  continuing  a  fight  which  has  been 
going  on  for  a  long  time  against  these  phrases.  In  1864,  Dean 
Alford-  had  to  deal  with  predecessors  of  these  two  scholars. 
He  said,  in  reply  to  them,  that  the  phrases  were  "rooted  in  the 
language  and  had  become  idiomatic."  lie  added  that  a  man 
who  insisted  upon  saying  "If  I  mistake  not"'  showed  that  he 
was  "under  the  influence  of  the  lesser  grammarians"  and  was 
not  influenced  by  "the  usages  of  society."  The  Century  rec- 
ognizes these  locutions;  also  mistaken  as  an  adjective  equiva- 
lent to  "in  error,"  quoting  Shakespeare  and  Daniel  Webster. 
Worcester,  Webster,  and  the  Standard  are  on  the  same  side. 
The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Shake- 
speare. Henry  Sweet  ^  defends  the  locution,  treating  mistaken 
as  a  preterite  passive  participle  used  in  an  active  sense.  Nes- 
field*  s&yH  that  you  were  mistaken  is  according  to  idiom,  while 
you  mistook  it  is  against  idiom. 

The  writer  has  found  no  recent  opponents  of  the  phrases 
besides  the  two  already  referred  to.  One  of  these  concedes 
that  you  are  mistaken  is  common  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

These  phrases  are  found  in  the  following  reputable  authors : 

Shakespeare  ^    1       Milton     2 

Samuel   Butler    1      Congreve    1 

Cowley    1      Matthew  Prior    1 

'^  Genung  in  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  edition  of  189.">,  but  ho  modifliHl  his  state- 
ment In  1900.  Quackenlxis  in  his  rr<icti<al  Rhetoric,  ISOO,  says  "Not  so 
elegant  as  'If  I  mistalie  not."  " 

^The  Queens  EtujUsh,  1S06,  pp.  105,  100. 

^  Xew  English  Grammar,  part  II,  p.  125. 

*En(jlish  Grammar  J'ast  and  Rrcscnt,  p.  210. 

''  The  concordance  to  Shal^espeare  shows  several  other  cases. 


126  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Fielding G  ^Macaulay   6 

Jane  Austen   1  Dean  Trench 1 

Franklin     2  W.  D.  Whitney 2 

Thomas  Jefferson i2  Edward    Fitzgerald 1 

Richardson     1  Sir   Henry   Taylor 1 

Poe    l.'j  Henry  Drummond 1 

Holmes 2  John   Fiske 2 

Bnlwer    o  Stevenson     1 

Huxley    1  Saintsbury   2 

From  the  foregoing  ])aragraplis  we  see  that  /  urn  mistaken 
has  been  standard  English  from  the  time  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  to  the  present.  The  names  of  Whitney  and  Trench 
should  carry  weight  with  those  who  care  for  the  custodians  of 
purity- ;  the  other  names  will  influence  those  who  value  the 
usage  of  well-known  authors  not  specialists  in  language. 

As  to  the  adjectival  use  of  mistaken,  as  meaning  "in 
eiTor,"  the  writer  has  the  following  statistics: 

Shakespeare     2      Lamb    1 

Pope   1       De    Quincey 1 

Baxter    2       Hallam     1 

Prior 1       G.  W.  Cable 1 

Swift     1       Sidney  Lanier 1 

Dr.    Johnson 2      Lowell     1 

Polite  usage  would  seem  to  be  almost  universally  in  favor 
of  he  was  mistaken,  etc.,  and  mistaken  man,  etc. 

Again  we  see  some  of  the  writers  on  usage  fighting  an  idiom 
established  in  polite  society  and  in  literature. 

Oliphant  ^  says  that  you  are  mistaken  was  coming  in  about 
1660  instead  of  you  mistook.  He  finds  it  in  Wyeherley.  Our 
table  tallies  with  this  statement.  But  see  the  quotations  from 
Quackenbos  above. 

On  the  negative,  then,  we  have  two  I'hetorical  scholars;  on 
the  affirmative,  ten  authorities  in  usage  and  twenty-four  makers 
of  usage,  besides  "the  usage  of  society."  The  reader  can 
draw  his  own  conclusions. 

1  The  Kfir  Eiirilish,  TI,  107. 


1  PEESUME  =  1  DAEE  SAY,  BELIEVE,  ETC.  127 

The  following  sentences  will  show  how  these  locutions  are 
used  hj'  some  of  the  great  autiiors.  Milton  in  his  Arcopagitica 
says,  "they  tuaij  he  mistaken  in  the  choice  of  a  licenser  as 
easily  as  this  licenser  may  he  mistaken  in  an  author."  Whit- 
ney in  Language  and  the  iStuclij  of  Language  says,  "These 
considerations,  if  I  am  not  mistake)),  will  be  found,"  etc. 
Again:  "those  are  greatly  mistaken  who  imagine  that  the 
beginnings  of  speech,"  etc.     Prior  uses  the  adjective: 

But   yovi   and    I    in    Homer   read 
Of  gods,  as  well  as  men,  mistalcu. 

Prior  has  two  poems  entitled  Cupicl  Mistaken  and  Venus 
Mistaken.  Huxley  says,  "He  ynag  have  heen  mistaken." 
Stevenson  says,  "I  had  ray  own  reasons  for  thinking  that 
the  stranger  was  mistaken." 


LVIII 

I  PRESUME  -    I  DARE  SAY,  BELIEVE,  ETC. 

Presume  in  the  meaning  of  elare  sag  is  condemned  mildly 
in  Genung's  school  rhetoric.  Genung^  will  not  permit  us  to 
say,  "I  presume  you  have  heard  so  and  so";  we  must  put  it, 
''I  presume  to  say  you  have  heard  so  and  so."  Does  anybody 
ever  use  that  language? 

The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  the  phrase,  quoting- 
Shakespeare,  Sheridan,  and  two  minor  authors.  Webster 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Milton  and  Sir  William  Blackstone. 
The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Black- 
stone.  The  Standard  and  Worcester  recognize  it.  The  New 
English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  Avith  quotations  from  Wil- 
liam Robertson  and  Sir  John  Lubbock. 

The  writer  has  seen  this  phrase  in  Shakespeare,  Chesterfield, 
Hallam,  Byron,  and  Bulwer.     Sheridan  as  quoted  l)y  the  Cen- 

1  Ouir(iu.<t  ,,f  Rhcforic,  100(1,  p.  ?.-2r,. 


128  STrniFS  in  usage 

tury,  says  in  The  Rivals,  "Yes,  sir,  I  presume  you  would  not 
wish  me  to  quit  the  army  ? ' '  Byron  says,  * '  Did  Mr.  Bowles  ever 
gaze  upon  the  sea  ?  I  presume  he  has  at  least  upon  a  sea- 
piece,"    Who  would  c'lumge  to  "I  presume  to  say,"  etc.? 

Here  we  have  five  authorities  and  ten  reputable  authors  on 
one  side  and  one  reputable  professor  of  rhetoric  on  tlie  other. 

I  presume  is  widely  used  in  polite  society. 


LTX 

I  TAKE  IT  =  I  UNDERSTAND,  SUPPOSE 

George  Campbell  in  his  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric  (1776), 
regards  /  take  it  as  only  a  little  better  than  some  "vile  but 
common  phrases"  he  is  discussing. 

Dean  Alford  ^  defends  it,  and  says  that  the  expulsion  of 
this  phrase  would  be  a  loss  to  the  language.  The  Century  Dic- 
tionary recognizes  it,  and  quotes  a  passage  from  Sheridan. 
Nesfield-  says,  "This  is  a  common  phrase  for  'in  my  opinion.'" 
Oliphant^  says  it  was  coming  in  about  1470;  he  also  quotes  a 
passage  from  Fanny  Burney,  about  1782.  Webster  and 
Worcester  recognize  it.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  quoting  Shakespeare,  the  Tatler,  and  Tennyson. 

While  the  phrase  is  not  very  common  in  the  literature,  it  is 
found  in  the  following  writers: 

Wyc'liffe     1  Dean  Alfor.l    1 

Marlowe   1  Poe    1 

Shakespeare     3  Carlyle    1 

Massinger    ,1  H.  N.  Hudson 3 

Congreve    2  Browning  3 

Swift     1  Fitzedwarrl    Hall 1 

Dryden    1  Thackeray    1 

Lamb 7  Earl  of  Derby    1 

"^The  Queen's  Etujlish,  1860,  pp.  230.  231. 
^English  Grammar  Past  and  Preaent.  p.  203. 
»The  Vc'ir  Ihuilish,  I,  '^.22  :  TT,  190. 


IMMENSE  AND  IMMENSELY  129 

Matthew    Arnold 1  Saintsbury   2 

Henry  Drummond    1  George  Herbert  Palmer 1 

Lowell    1  Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke 1 

Holmes      1  Price   Collier 2 

Huxley    2  Stevenson 1 

Tennyson    1  Ernest  Rhys   1 

Stedmau     1 

The  phrase  has  high  authority  and  good  platform  usage  in 
its  favor.  It  occurs  several  times  in  the  writings  of  Otto 
Jespersen,  Avhich  proves  that  he  has  learned  it  as  good  English. 

Dean  Swift  {Conversation)  says,  "By  these  means  the  poets, 
for  many  years  past,  were  all  overrun  with  pedantry.  For, 
as  /  take  it,  the  word  is  not  properly  used, ' '  etc.  Tennyson  in 
Edwin  Morris  makes  the  curate  say, 

I  tale  it,  God  made  the  woman  for  the  man. 

Stedman,  the  poet  and  critic,  says,  "Sul)jective  work  is 
judged  to  be  inferior,  /  take  it,  from  its  morbid  examples." 
(Nature  and  Elements  of  Poetry.)  Carlyle  (Heroes)  says, 
"For,  as  /  take  it,  Universal  History,  the  history  of  what  man 
has  accomplished  in  this  world,  is, ' '  etc.  Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke 
in  his  Poetry  of  Tennyson  says,  "The  art  of  landscape-poetry, 
I  take  it,  consists  in  this,"  etc.    Browning  says, 

But  she  and  her  son   agreed,   I   take  it, 
That,  etc. 


LX 

IMMENSE  AND  IMMENSELY 

Is  it  slangy  to  say,  "I  like  that  immensely"? 

Greenough  and  Kittredge^  discuss  the  adjective  immense 
as  a  slang  word ;  no  doubt  it  is  slangy  in  many  cases.  When, 
however,  we  find  it  in  James  Barton's  Life  of  Burr,  "This 
young  gentleman  .  .  .  had  an  immense  opinion  of  Burr's  tal- 

'  Words  and  Their  Woyi  in  English  Speech,  p.  313. 


130  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

ents, "  shall  we  call  it  slangy?  Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke  in  a 
baccalaureate  sermon  at  Harvard  in  1898  said,  "Now,  ...  it 
was  an  immense  compliment  for  the  disciples  to  be  spoken  to  in 
this  way"  (by  Christ).  Charles  Lamb,  writing  to  Coleridge 
about  a  book,  says,  "I  like  it  immensely."  Of  course  he  was 
using  it  in  an  easy,  epistolary  style,  but  slang  is  slang.  The 
Century  Dictionary  defines  immensely  as  "exceedingly,"  but 
gives  no  example  from  the  literature.  Fielding,  Chesterfield, 
Macaulay,  and  George  Eliot  use  the  two  forms. 

Of  course  ^'immense  building",  '^immense  fortune,"  etc., 
are  used  continually;  but  "immense  compliment",  "immense 
opinion,"  etc.,  are  much  rarer  in  literature.  However,  it  is 
very  common  for  a  word  to  pass  from  the  physical  to  the 
psychical  sense ;  and  this  word  is  simply  moving  in  accord- 
ance with  this  principle. 

Morton  Luce,  a  distinguished  critic  of  England,  says,  "We 
admired  Sims  Reeves  immensely ,  but  we  hoped  never  to  hear 
him  sing  that  song  again. ' '  This  is  exactly  like  Lamb 's  use  of 
the  adverb.  Fielding,  speaking  of  Jonathan  Wild,  says,  "His 
avarice  was  immense," 


LXI 

IMPLICIT  CONFIDENCE 

Genung^  condemns  the  phrase  implicit  confidence,  "Im- 
plicit," he  says,  "not  to  he  used  in  the  sense  of  ^unlimited.'  .  .  . 
Implicit  is  properly  opposed  to  explicit, — literally,  infolded  in 
contrast  to  unfolded."  Here  is  "the  evil  spirit  of  derivation," 
not  permitting  a  word  to  cut  loose  from  its  etymology  and 
extend  its  meaning. 

The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  implicit  in  the  sense  of 
unquestioning  and  cpiotes  implicit  faith  from  Dr.  John  Brown. 

J  Outlines  of  Rlirtorie,  inOO,  p.  S17. 


IMPLICIT  CONFIDENCE  131 

Worcester,  the  Standard,  and  Webster  all  recognize  it,  the 
last  named  giving  tlie  phrases  iiiiplicit  confidence  and  implicit 
obedience,  and  quoting  implicit  faith  from  John  Donne.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  and  quotes  implicit 
Relieving  from  Bishop  Burnet.  Tlie  Oxford  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  with  quotations  from  the  literature. 

The  writer  has  seen  implicit  faith  in  Butler,  Gibbon,  Lamb, 
Hallam,  and  Poe  ;  implicit  confidence  in  Jane  Austen,  Sir  John 
Lubbock,  and  Professor  Lounsbury;  implicit  reliance  in  Poe 
and. Dickens;  implicitly  credited  in  Huxley;  trusted  implicitly 
in  the  writings  of  Fitzedward  Hall  and  Cunningham  Geikie ; 
implicit  obedience  in  Hallam;  implicit  belief  in  Lamb.  In 
polite  colloquial  English  and  in  public  discourse,  the  phrases 
cited  above  would  seem  to  be  almost  universal. 

Coleridge,  in  speaking  of  Shakespeare,  says,  "himself  a 
nature  humanized,  a  genial  understanding  devoting  self- 
consciously a  power  and  an  implicit  wisdom  deeper  even  than 
our  consciousness."  This  use  of  implicit  is  much  rarer  than 
the  one  under  discussion. 

Implicit  faith  and  implicit  confidence  are  standard  phrases 
in  the  language  and  literature  and  refuse  to  be  driven  out. 

Genung,  then,  seems  unwarranted  in  his  criticism  of  implicit 
confidence  and  other  locutions  involving  the  same  meaning  of 
the  adjective;  they  are  found  in  the  best  books  and  are  used 
by  the  best  speakers. 

Samuel  Butler  in  Tlndibras  says, 

Whate'er  the  crabbed 'st  author  hath 
He  understood  by  implicit  faith. 

Dr.  C.  Geikie,  a  prominent  religious  writer,  says,  "They  .  .  . 
trusted  implicitly  that  He  who  selected  their  nation  to  be  His 
peculiar  people  Avould  protect  them  and  their  country,"  etc. 
Dickens  {Pickwick  Papers)  says,  "he  placed  implicit  reliance 
on  the  high-minded  Job."  Lounsbury  says,  "the  generaliza- 
tions contained  in  grammars  in  the  shape  of  rules  can  fre- 


132  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

quenlly  not  be  received  with  implicit  confuh  ncc,  because  they 
have  been  based  upon  insufficient  data." 

The  distinction  between  implicit  and  explicit  hiid  down  by 
the  textl)ook  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  section  is  per- 
fectly valid;  but  implicit  has  another  meaning  in  the  phrases 
implicit  confidence,  etc.  A  good  illustration  of  the  antithesis 
referred  to  above  is  seen  in  a  sentence  from  Adam  Bede: 
"Behind  this  explicit  resolution  there  lay  an  implicit  one." 


LXII 

ITT  OUR   (THEIR,  YOUR)   MIDST 

Quackenbos  ^  puts  in  our  midst  among  his  "everyday  mis- 
usages"  and  says,  ''In  our  midst  for  in  the  midst  of  us  is 
severely  criticized  on  the  ground  that  one  cannot  possess  a 
midst,  the  English  possessive,  in  its  modern  use,  being  almost 
exclusively  limited  to  the  notion  of  property  (usage  approves 
a  week's  pay).  Old  English  writers  used  'in  the  midst.'  " 
(As  to  the  statement  about  the  possessive  in  modern  English, 
see  pp.  202  ff.,  below.)  Genung-  says,  "It  is  better  style  to 
use  the  o/-construction  rather  than  the  possessive,  as,  in  the 
midst  of  us,  of  them."  A.  S.  Hill  ^  says,  "In  our  midst  ...  is 
avoided  by  so  many  careful  writers,  and  condemned  by  so 
many  critics,  that  it  may  never  fight  its  way  into  the  accepted 
language."    Webster  says,  "Avoided  by  some  good  writers." 

One  of  the  earliest  modern  champions  of  this  locution  was 
Fitzedward  Hall,*  already  referred  to  in  this  volume  as  the 
friend  of  the  friendless.  His  defense  of  in  their  midst,  etc.,  is 
approvingly  quoted  by  the  Century  Dictionary,  which  adds, 
"These  phrases  have  been  objected  to  by  some  writers  on 


1  Practical  Rhetoric,  edition  of  1S96,  p.  2.^6. 
'^Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  .317. 
^ Beyinnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  1902,  p.  50. 
*  Modern  English,  pp.  48-51. 


7.V  OFF.   (THE IE,  TOUR)  MIDST  133 

English,  but  with  uo  good  reason. ' '  Dr.  Hall  traces  the  phrase 
back  to  the  fourteenth  century.  He  finds  an  equivalent  phrase 
of  the  same  formation  in  a  Wyelitfite  paper,  written,  he  says, 
either  b}-  Wyclitf'e  or  by  one  of  his  contemporaries.  This  is 
the  same  phrase  cited  by  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant  and  referred  to  in 
a  later  paragraph  of  this  section.  Tliis  passage  Hall  uses  to 
establish  the  antiquity  of  the  phrase.  He  then  argues  that  the 
phrase  is  perfectly  analogical,  and  advises  that  any  one  who 
cannot  bring  himself  to  use  it  should  "pass  by  on  the  other 
side  and  leave  it  to  itself."  (Dr.  Hall's  book  is  almost  inac- 
cessible, but  his  defense  of  in  our  (their)  midst  is  quoted  in 
the  Century  Dictionary  under  the  word  midst.)  The  New 
English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  quotations  from  James 
Montgomery,  James  IMartineau,  and  James  Bryce,  and  adds: 
"Scarcely  found  before  the  19th  centuiy ;  the  solitary  example 
from  the  16tli  century  does  not  prove  that  it  was  current." 
The  New  English  Dictionary  failed  to  notice  that  the  phrase 
was  current  in  Anglo-Saxon  and  simply  re-emerged  in  later 
periods  of  the  language.  (See  infra.)  The  Encyclopedic  Dic- 
tionary recognizes  the  locution  but  quotes  no  authors. 

The  group  of  words  under  discussion  goes  back  to  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  ;  it  is  used  several  times  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  gospels,  and 
might  be  represented  in  modern  English  by  in  their  middle 
(A.S.  middel).  This  later  became  middest  or  midst.  In  the 
Middle  English  literature,  we  find  in  her  {=their)  middes 
and  on  heora  middele,  where  middes  and  w(i(ic?e?e  =  modern 
midst,  and  o;i=  modern  in.  This  proves  that  the  group 
under  discussion  is  not  a  neologism  but  a  very  old  locution. 
Again :  the  word  midst  has  for  hundreds  of  years  been  used 
as  a  noun  in  such  phrases  as  "in  the  midst  of  us",  "in  the 
midst  01  the  doctors,"  etc.  A  very  natural  step  is  to  the 
phrases  "in  our  midst,"  etc. 

The  Century  Dictionary  quotes  "In  their  midst  a  form  w^as 
seen ' '  from  James  Montgomery.  The  writer  has  seen  the  locu- 
tion once  each  in  Trench,  Huxley,  and  Geikie ;  no  doubt  the 


134  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

vehement  attacks  made  upon  the  phrase  "before  the  days  of 
Fitzedward  Hall,  the  New  English  Dictionary,  and  the  Cen- 
tury territied  the  authors  so  much  that  they  were  afraid  to 
use  it. 

From  what  has  been  said  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  we 
see  that  the  locution  under  discussion  has  several  things  in  its 
favor:  (1)  A  continuous  history  in  the  language  from  the 
Anglo-Saxon  07i  hyra  midlcne,  through  middle  English  on  her 
middes,  to  modern  in  their  midst.  (2)  Analogy,  as  shown  by 
Fitzedward  Hall.  (3)  Brevity  and  convenience,  a  potent  fac- 
tor in  language  development.  (4)  The  fact  that  midst  has  been 
used  as  a  noun  for  hundreds  of  years  in  the  literature. 
(5)  Polite  usage  in  conversation  and  in  public  speaking. 

Richard  Grant  White  could  not  well  object  to  this  locution, 
as  it  has  in  its  favor  precedent,  analogy,  and  reason,  his  three 
parents  of  usage. 

If  numbers  alone  count,  we  have  not  a  strong  case  for  the 
phrase  under  discussion.  If  quality  is  considered,  however, 
the  case  is  pretty  strong,  as  Trench,  Fitzedward  Hall,  the  Cen- 
tury, and  the  Oxford  dictionaries  together  will  carry  weight 
with  students  of  language. 


LXIII 

INDIVIDUAL   FOi;  MAN,  ETC. 

Of  individual  for  man,  or  person,  Quackenbos  '  said  in  1896, 
"sometimes  loosely  substituted  for  man,  ivoman,  person." 
Genung-  in  1900  said,  "not  to  be  used  in  the  mere  sense  of 
'person.'  When  used  it  should  always  convey  some  thought  of 
a  single  person  or  thing  as  opposed  to  many."  The  Century 
calls  it  "colloquial."     Oliphant,^  speaking  of  the  adjectival 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  241. 

'Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  318. 

a  The  New  Enylish,  I,  470  ;  II,  178. 


INDIVIDUAL  FOE  MAN,  ETC.  135 

use  of  this  word  in  Foote  (1750),  says,  "This  individual 
was  to  be  worked  hard  in  the  next  century."  (And  it  tvas 
worked  hard  in  the  nineteenth  centuiy  by  the  best  authors  and 
in  polite  society.)  The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Now 
chiefly  as  a  colloquial  vulgarism,  or  as  a  term  of  disparage- 
ment." It  quotes  passages  from  Dr.  Johnson,  Goldsmith, 
Scott,  and  Dr.  Kane. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases  in  his  course  of 
reading : 

Sir   Thomas  Browne 1       Jolm   Hay    1 

Smollett     2       Leon    Kellner    1 

Boswell     2       London  Standard   1 

Dr.   Johnson 4       Hawthorne  15 

Lamb    2       Merivale 1 

Coleridge    2o       Emerson     4 

De  Quincey   '•'>       Sir   William   Hamilton 13 

Jeffrey    2       Bulwer    10 

Audubon     1       Dickens     ...  18 

Scott 3       Poe    35 

Irving 1       Motley    10 

Beaconsfield 2       Daniel    Webster 2 

Cooper    26       Hallam   4 

Holmesi     1       Macaulay    1 

Matthew  Arnold 1       Minto    8 

Thackeray    7       Alexander    Bain 3 

Carlyle    .12       Price  Collier   1 

H.  T.  Tuckerman 1       Kittredgc  and  Greenough 1 

Dean   Stanley    1       Sir  Henry  Taylor.  '. 2 

After  reading  this  list,  how  can  we  think  that  the  word  is 
obsolescent?  How  can  the  Century  Dictionary  call  it  collo- 
quial? How  can  the  New  English  Dictionary  call  it  a  col- 
loquial vulgarism? 

We  can  of  course  say  that  the  word  is  less  popular  with 
authors  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago.  We  may  admit  that  at 
present  it  is  rather  old-fashioned.  When,  however,  we  see  it 
used  by  writers  on  style  like  ]\Iinto  and  Bain,  by  scholars  like 
Kittredge  and  Kellner,  by  cultivated  men  like  Dean  Stanley, 


136  STUDIES  IN   USAGE 

John  Hay,  Price  Collier,  A.  C.  Benson,  and  five  Yale  professors 
of  English,^  we  should  be  careful  how  we  condemn  it. 

The  table  given  above  will  show  that  the  word  was  very 
popular  with  Coleridge,  Hawthorne,  Cooper,  Dickens,  Bulwer, 
Motley,  and  other  distinguished  writers  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. Emerson,  quite  recently,  said,  "He  named  certain  indi- 
viduals, especially  one  man  of  letters,  his  friend,  the  best  mind 
he  knew,  whom  London  had  well  served."  Matthew  Arnold 
says,  "Acquirements  take  all  their  value  and  character  from 
the  power  of  the  individual  storing  them."  Minto,  one  of  the 
best  recent  writers  on  style,  uses  the  word  quite  frequently  in 
his  volumes.  Bain,  the  eminent  grammarian,  says,  "This  rela- 
tive clause  simply  adds  in  a  convenient  form  further  informa- 
tion concerning  an  individual  already  definitely  pointed  out." 

Ma7i  and  person  are  more  used  in  present-day  English. 


LXIV 

-ING  FOEMS  WITH  AND  WITHOUT    'S 

Which  is  better,  "Have  you  heard  of  Smith,  or  Smith's, 
killing  his  uncle"?  "Have  you  heard  of  my  ham,  or  ham's, 
falling  down"? 

In  1776  George  Campbell  defended  the  possessive  form 
against  Bishop  Lowth,  the  critic  and  grammarian.  Lowth  did 
not  like  the  form  in  's,  although  it  was  used  by  Blair,  Boswell, 
Johnson,  and  other  writers  and  scholars  of  his  day.  Goold 
Brown,  about  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  attacked 
the  possessive  form.  In  1857,  Professor  J.  W.  Gibbs,-  of  Yale, 
said,  "There  is  a  strong  tendency  in  popular  language  to 
employ  the  substantive  participial  in  -ing  even  with  a  genitive 
noun  or  pronoun."    Then  he  gives  two  sentences.    "But,"  he 

1  Canby  and  others  in  their  English   Composition  in  Theory  and  Practice. 
''Philological  Studies,  p.  101   (4). 


-ING  FOEMS,  IVITH  AND  WITHOUT    'S  137 

continues,  "all  these  examples  are  disapproved  by  Mr.  Goold 
Brown,  the  grammarian,  who  has  examined  them  with  great 
thoroughness  and  ability.  ...  It  is  doubtfvil,  however,  whether 
any  authority  can  stem  the  current  of  this  usage. ' '  Here  are 
the  grammarians  finding  fault  with  the  language.  At  this  very 
moment  the  -ing  form  with  's  was  vigorous  in  the  writings  of 
Dickens  and  George  Eliot,  makers  of  English  at  that  time, 
besides  Boswell,  Johnson,  Jane  Austen,  and  others  of  earlier 
periods. 

Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  in  How  to  Parse, ^  calls  killing  a  participle 
and  says  that  the  objective  is  "sometimes  incorrectly  used." 
(As  to  the  "sometimes,"  see  the  subjoined  lists;  as  to  the  cor- 
rectness, the  author  will  quote  authorities  and  standard 
writers.)  Dr.  Abbott  is  more  tolerant  of  the  passive  form; 
e.g.,  "Have  you  heard  of  Smith  heing  killed f"  Baskervill 
and  Sewell  -  say  that  both  forms  are  equally  correct ;  that 
the  form  without  's  is  the  older;  that  both  are  found  in  the 
literature.  They  treat  kiUi))g  in  both  eases  as  the  gerund. 
Sweet  calls  the  objective  form  a  "half-gerund,"  though  a 
participle  in  form.  He  says  that  the  objective  case  is  preferred 
before  names  that  do  not  denote  animate  objects;  i.e.,  "Have 
you  heard  of  tlie  g(n}ie  being  postponed.^"  rather  than  "Have 
you  heard  of  Smith  postponing  the  game?"  Krapp*  defends 
both  forms,  but  draws  some  fine  distinctions.  He  agrees  in 
the  main  witli  Sweet's  view.  Carpenter^  says,  "the  noun 
or  pronoun  nnist  be  in  the  possessive,  not  the  objective.  The 
objective  is,  however,  sometimes  found  now  in  literary  English 
in  such  expressions,  and  it  was  still  more  common  in  the 
English  of  several  generations  ago."  (As  to  whether  the 
noun  7n){st  he  in  the  possessive  case,  see  the  long  list  of 
authors   that   use   the   objective.      The   adverb    "sometimes" 

1  Pp.  234,  235. 

^English  Grammar,  pp.  285,  286. 

^Seu-  Enylish   Grammar,  part  11.  p.  121. 

*  Modern  English,  pp.  301-304. 

^ Princiijhs  of  English  Grammar,  p.  144,  note. 


138  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

should  be  changed  to  ' '  frequently. ' ' )  Jespersen  ^  makes  the 
same  statement.  He  says,  "The  subject  of  the  -Uig  ...  is 
for  the  most  part  put  in  the  genitive  case — nearly  always 
when  it  is  a  personal  pronoun,  and  generally  when  it  indi- 
cates a  person";  yet  Jespersen  himself  uses  the  objective 
frequently  in  his  books.  Nesfield-  says,  "A  noun  or  pronoun, 
provided  it  denotes  a  person  or  other  animal,  is  usually  in  the 
possessive  case,  when  it  is  placed  before  a  genind."  He 
treats  the  -ing  form  as  a  participle  used  gerundivel}^  and  calls 
it  a  Gerundive  Participle.  Kellner^  says  the  objective  form 
is  older,  and  that  it  has  for  the  last  decades  been  gaining 
ground  in  a  surprising  manner.  He  regards  the  -ing  form 
as  originally  a  participle,  but  now  a  verbal  noun.  Kittredge 
and  Farley  *  say,  ' '  The  possessive  case  of  a  noun  or  pronoun 
may  be  used  to  limit  a  verbal  noun  in  -ing.*'  Then  they  add 
that  we  must  say,  "I  have  heard  of  Allen's  being  elected," 
not  Allen. 

The  following  tables  will  show  the  relative  strength  of 
genitive  + -in (/  and  objective  + -f/^r/  in  a  wide  course  of  read- 
ing. Pronouns  are  not  included,  as  they  are  nearly  always 
genitive  in  reputable  authors. 

1.     OBJECTIVE   (WITHOrT   'S) 

Rolls  of  Pnrliament,   1435-1437 .  1  Scott     4 

Sir   Thomas  More 1  Irvincr     4 

Defoe    9  Keats    1 

Pope     1  Hazlitt    1 

Lady  Mary  Wortlcy  Montagu ...  1  Lamb    10 

Dr.  H.  Blair 3  Coleridge    5 

Boswell     :  .  .  14  De  Quincey    6 

Dr.   Johnson    2  Mrs.  Gaskell    5 

Franklin     1  Kingsley    2 

Byron   1  ,Tane  Austen   3 

'^Qhowth  and  Structure  of  the  English  Language,  p.  202. 
"  EnglisJi  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  74. 
^Historical  Outlines  of  English  (^imta.r,  pp.  202-204. 
*  Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  147. 


-ING  FORMS,   WITH  AND   WITHOUT    'S 


139 


George  Eliot  26 

Dickens     22 

Thackeray    10 

Carlyle    1 

Euskin    2 

Hawthorne 1 

Milman     1 

Poe    7 

Sir  William   Hamilton 2 

Matthew   Arnold    3 

John  Morley   1 

Justin   McCarthy 7 

Saintsbnry     4 

William  Minto    1 

Huxley     5 

Fronde    2 

Morris    2 


Prescott     1 

Lowell    1 

Emerson     1 

Freeman     4 

Bagehot    1 

William  James   1 

Chesterton    7 

T.   L.   K.   Oliphant 1 

Churton    Collins 9 

H.  W.  Mabie 1 

Lounsbury     5 

John  Fiske 2 

Dr.   C.   Geikie 3 

Price  Collier    1 

T.    N.    Page 2 

Sir  Henry  Taylor 5 


Total,  217  caies;  53  authorities. 


GENITIVE    (WITH    'S) 


Milton     1 

Jeremy  Taylor 1 

Cotton  Mather 1 

Pepys    3 

Defoe'  4 

Addison 6 

Burnet    17 

Steele    3 

Boswell 23 

Dr.   Johnson    13 

Dr.  H.  Blair 9 

Jonathan    Edwards 3 

Izaak  Walton 1 

Burke    3 

Fielding 8 

Lamb    4 

Hazlitt    5 

Coleridge    4 

Scott 1 

Franklin     2 


Washington   1 

.Jane  Austen   28 

North    1 

Hallam     1 

Southey    1 

Leigh  Hunt 1 

Poe   8 

Cooper    1 

Ruskin    1 

Bulwer    1 

George  Eliot   22 

Mrs.  Gaskell   4 

Dickens     17 

Holmes  1 

Kingsley 3 

Carlyle    4 

Matthew  Arnold 3 

Hawthorne     2 

De  Quincey   2 

Tennyson   1 


140 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


J.  F.  Genung 1 

Price  Collier   1 

C.  Geikie   1 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

T.  N.  rage 1 

Mabie   1 

H.  N.  Hudson 1 

Total,  231  cases;  54  authorities. 


Fiske     1 

Louiisbury    1 

J.    M.    Barrie 1 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 1 

Alexander   Bain 2 

Sir   Henry   Taylor 2 

Huxley    1 


Some  interesting  deductions  can  be  drawn  from  the  fore- 
going statistics : 

(1)  The  form  without  's  is  older  than  the  other,  as  we  have 
already  seen  from  high  authorities.  (2)  The  two  forms  are 
numerically  about  even  (231  to  217)  in  the  literature  read. 
(3)  Both  forms  are  used  by  a  large  number  of  authors,  espe- 
cially the  following:  Defoe,  Dr.  Blair,  Boswell,  Dr.  Johnson, 
Scott,  Hazlitt,  Jane  Austen,  George  Eliot,  Dickens,  Matthew 
Arnold,  Mrs.  Gaskell,  Kingsley,  Poe.  The  following  compari- 
sons are  interesting :  George  Eliot :  with  's,  22  ;  without  's,  26. 
Dickens :  with  's,  17  ;  without  's,  22.  Lamb  :  with  's,  4 ;  without 
's,  10.  De  Quincey :  wdth  's,  2 ;  without  's,  6.  These  figures  indi- 
cate that  the  form  without  's  took  on  considerable  strength  in 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century.  (4)  The  objective 
form  is  much  stronger  than  the  other  in  some  of  the  best 
recent  writers ;  e.  g., 


Thackeray objective  10 

Justin  McCarthy objective     7 

G.   K.   Chesterton objective     7 

Churton  Collins   objective     9 

Lounsbury    objective     5 


possessive  0 

possessive  0 

possessive  0 

possessive  0 

possessive  1 


These  figures  would  indicate  that  the  possessive  fonn  may 
ultimately  disappear  from  the  literature.  (5)  Addison, 
Bishop  Burnet,  Dr.  Johnson,  Dr.  Hugh  Blair,  and  Jane  Aus- 
ten preferred  the  possessive  overwhelmingly;  but  we  have 
shown  that  after  their  day  the  tide  turned  in  favor  of  the 


-ING  FORMS,  WITH  AND  WITHOUT    'S  141 

objective.  (6)  Objective  form,  fifty-three  authorities;  pos- 
sessive, fifty-four,  for  several  centuries.  (7)  In  the  nine- 
teenth century,  the  objective  and  the  possessive  forms  are  in 
the  ratio  of  eight  to  five,  respectively. 

It  may  be  added  as.  an  interesting  fact  that  neither  of  these 
locutions  appeals  to  the  poets,  as  no  one  of  the  449  examples 
was  found  in  poetry,  although  the  author  has  read  widely  in 
the  British  and  American  poets.  Is  there  any  reason  for  this  ? 
Is  the  ''gerundive  participle,"  as  Nesfield  calls  it,  unsuited  to 
poetry  ?    Yes ;  it  is  prose. 

Query :  "What  became  of  the  locution  from  1435-14;37,  when 
we  first  found  it,  to  the  time  of  Sir  Thomas  More  ?  Probably 
it  was  passing  its  time  of  probation  in  some  parts  of  England, 
waiting  for  its  day  to  come.  This,  we  know,  is  true  of  many 
locutions  :  they  emerge,  disappear,  and  emerge  again  in  greater 
vigor. 

Jespersen  says  that  the  objective  -ing  is  two  hundred  years 
old ;  but  the  table  proves  that  it  goes  back  to  14:35-1437,  showing 
itself  later  in  the  writings  of  Sir  Thomas  ]\Iore.  It  comes  out 
pretty  strongly  in  Daniel  Defoe,  who,  in  the  tables,  has  nine 
objectives  and  four  genitives.  A  hundred  years  later,  Boswell 
uses, the  objective  pretty  frequently,  though  preferring  the 
genitive. 

Is  there  any  reason  why  the  objective  noun  should  grad- 
ually supplant  the  possessive  ?  Some  suggestions  may  be 
ventured.  First :  there  are  a  good  many  cases  in  which  the 
possessive  is  rarely  used;  e.g.,  with  this  and  that,  as  in  the 
sentence,  "Have  you  ever  heard  of  this  (or  that)  being  done?" 
Again :  with  plural  nouns ;  as,  ' '  Have  you  heard  of  all  the 
Smiths  being  injured?"  The  writer  has  never  seen  the  pos- 
sessive sign  in  such  a  sentence.  Thirdly :  when  modifying 
words,  phrases,  or  clauses  intervene  between  the  noun  and 
the  -ing  form;  e.g.,  "Have  you  heard  of  Smith,  the  carpenter, 
being  injured?"  "Have  you  heard  of  Smith,  of  Tammanij 
Hall,  being  killed?"    "Have  you  heard  of  Smith,  tvho  nsed 


142  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

to  he  pitcher,  being  injured^"     In  none  of  tliesc  sentences 
can  the  's  be  used. 

While  the  objective  noun  has  been  spreatlinj^,  llie  pronoun 
has  kept  to  the  possessive  form  much  more  closely.  It  is  not 
usual  to  find  such  sentences  as,  ''Have  you  heard  of  him  (or 
mc)  being  elected?"  These  are  heard  considerably  in  collo- 
quial English,  but  occur  only  occasionally  in  the  literature. 

Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott's  statement,^  then,  is  too  drastic:  "incor- 
rectly" is  the  wrong  word  and  "sometimes"  is  equally  so. 
This  eminent  grammarian  set  the  writer  against  the  objective 
fonn  in  daj's  gone  by  and  has  no  doubt  influenced  others. 

It  was  said  above  that  some  authors  use  both  forms  pretty 
frequently.  In  fact  we  sometimes  see  them  close  together  on 
the  page,  even  in  the  same  sentence.  This  is  certainly  true  of 
George  Eliot. 

We  have  seen  that  there  are  several  places  where  the  ^s-form 
could  not  possibly  be  used.  We  have  seen  also  that  the 
objective  form  made  great  headway  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
Are  these  two  f  ^cts  connected  ?  Does  not  language  move  along 
the  lines  of  least  resistance?  If  there  are  tv/o  ways  of  ex- 
pressing the  same  idea  in  a  given  language,  will  not  the  easier 
one,  the  one  offering  least  resistance,  prevail  ultimatelj^  ?  This 
is,  of  course,  a  fundamental  law  of  language. 

The  grammarians  will  no  doubt  continue  to  argue  as  to  the 
best  name  for  this  form  in  -ing.  We  know  now  that  both  locu- 
tions are  strong  in  the  literature  and  that  the  name  is  of 
minor  importance.  ' '  Verbal ' '  is  non-committal.  ' '  Gerundive 
Participle"  is  a  plausible  title.  The  grammarian  and  the 
rhetorician  can  only  watch  the  movement  of  the  language  and 
be  ready  to  report  changes  in  the  future. 

Let  us  see  how  both  forms  are  used  by  the  same  writer. 

George  Eliot  {Daniel  Deronda)  says,  "it  ended  in  Rex's  being 

obliged  to  consent,"  etc.;  "Papa  approved  of  Gwendolen's 

accepting  him, ' '  etc. ;  ' '  she  began  to  be  aware  that  she  was  out 

1  See  6upra. 


JEOPASDIZE  143 

of  place,  and  to  dread  Dcronda's  seeing  her";  "Don't  you 
approve  of  a  wife  burning  incense  before  lier  husband  T'  .  ,  . 
"How  could  Hetty  .  .  .  think  much  of  poor  old  Thias  being 
drowned?''  {Adam  Bede.)  Charles  Lamb  says,  "I  had  reck- 
oned in  particular  on  my  aunt's  living  many  years.''  .  .  . 
"I  should  be  scandalized  at  a  hon  mot  issuing  from  his  oracle- 
looking  mouth. ' ' 

It  would  seem  that  the  objective  and  the  genitive  forms  of 
the  noun  are  about  even  unless  euphony  or  word-order  inter- 
feres; and  it  does  not  appear  that  Smith's  is  to  any  extent 
more  general  than  ham's  in  the  model  sentences  at  the  head  of 
this  section,  though  further  investigation  may  change  the 
writer's  views  on  this  subject. 

Abbott's  statement,  then,  cannot  be  accepted.  (1)  He  calls 
the  objective  +  -ing  incorrect,  though  used  by  the  best  authors. 
(2)  He  says  that  it  is  rare,  which  the  tables  disprove.  (3)  He 
speaks  of  the  gemtiye-^  noun  as  "the  native  verbal  use,"  as 
if  the  other  were  not  equally  native. 

LXV 
JEOPARDIZE 

Some  rhetorical  scholars  and  many  purists  will  not  tolerate 
jeopardize;  but  say  that  we  must  use  jeopard.  T.  L.  K.  Oli- 
phant^  calls  it  "barbarous.''  Quackeubos-  calls  it  "a  mon- 
strosity," and  says  we  might  as  well  say  "walkize",  "sing- 
ize. ' '  Genung  ^  says  jeoparel  is  better.  AVilliam  Cullen  Bryant 
put  it  on  his  forbidden  list. 

The  Century,  however,  recognizes  it,  quoting  passages  from 
Sir  Henry  Taylor  and  Robert  Browning — the  latter  saying 
"jeopardize  my  life."  "Webster,  the  Standard,  and  Worcester 
recognize  it,  the  first-named  quoting  the  same  passage  from 

1  The  yew  English,  I,  246. 

''Practical  Rhetoric,  1S96,  p.  231,  note  2. 

3  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  318. 


144  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Taylor  that  the  Century  quotes.  The  New  English  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Sir  Henry  Taylor,  Trench,  Dean 
Stanley,  and  Sidney  Lee. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  twice  in  Poe,  once  in  the  works 
of  Cyril  Ransome,  a  distinguished  English  Shakespearian ;  once 
in  the  editorial  colunnis  of  the  New  England  Journal  of  Edu- 
cation, and  once  each  in  II.  W.  Mabie  and  Bret  Harte. 

Jeopardize  fills  the  mouth  better,  seems  to  carry  an  emo- 
tional connotation,  and  also  has  a  distinctively  verbal  ending. 
Besides  high  literary  antliority,  it  has  wide  vogue  in  "polite 
society. ' ' 

Poe  in  his  Purloined  Letter  says,  "this  fact  gives  the  holder 
of  tlie  document  an  ascendancy  over  the  illustrious  personage 
whose  honor  and  peace  are  so  jeopardized." 


LXVI 

JOURNAL 

Genung  ^  says,  ^^  Journal  (from  French  jonr,  a  day)  is  not 
properly  used  of  a  monthly  or  quarterly  magazine. "  Dr.  E.  A. 
Abbott,  the  grammarian,  takes  the  same  view.  In  his  Shake- 
spearian Grammar'-  he  says,  "now  it  is  restricted  to  a  daily 
newspaper  or  memoir. ' '  If  journal  is  limited  to  a  daily  paper, 
why  not  limit  journey  to  a  day's  travel?  The  same  argument 
would  apply  to  the  two  words. 

The  Standard  as  its  fourth  meaning  gives  "newspaper." 
Worcester  gives  the  same  definition.  Webster  says,  "a  peri- 
odical; a  magazine."  The  Century  says,  "any  publication 
issued  at  successive  periods  containing  reports  or  records  of 
current  events  of  any  kind."  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary 
says,  "now  extended  to  any  newspaper  or  other  periodical 

1  Outlines  of  RJictoric,  1900,  p.  318. 

2  P.  13. 


KINE  FOE  COWS  145 

published  at  certain  intervals.  Thus  we  may  speak  of  a 
weekly,  monthly,  or  yearly  journal;  a  publication  recording 
the  transactions  of  a  society,  as  the  Journal  of  the  Geological 
Society."  The  New  English  Dictionary  gives  the  same  wide 
meaning  to  the  word. 

The  word  journal  has  extended  its  meaning  as  words  so 
often  do.  We  have  the  American  Journal  of  Philology,  quar- 
terly; the  Educational  Journal,  New  York,  monthly;  the  New 
England  Journal  of  Education,  weekly,  and  others  too  numer- 
ous to  mention.  Tlie  editors  of  these  journals  may  well  be  con- 
sidered as  reputable  authors  worth  quoting  as  authorities  in 
elegant  English.  The  author  can  add  one  passage  from  Charles 
Lamb  and  one  from  Price  Collier.  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
tlie  two  scholars  quoted  in  our  first  paragraph  are  in  a  decided 
minority. 

Lamb,  in  a  letter  to  a  London  paper,  not  a  daily,  said,  "A 
word  from  you,  sir — a  hint  in  your  journal — would  be  suffi- 
cient to  fling  open  the  doors  of  the  beautiful  temple  again,  as 
we  can  remernber  them  when  we  were  boys. ' '  Price  Collier,  in 
his  England  and  the  English,  says,  "certain  of  their  jour)ials, 
the  Spectator  and  Times  for  example,  are  unimpeachable 
in  their  style  and  temper."  The  Spectator  is  a  weekly 
publication. 


LXVII 

KINE  FOi:  COWS 

The  plural  kinc  (=cows)  is  familiar  to  all  readers  of  the 
Bible,  the  word  coivs  not  being  used  by  the  translators  of 
1611:  "Pharaoh's  lean  kine^'  is  known  to  all. 

The  Century  Dictionary  calls  kine  archaic,  and  cites  pas- 
sages from  Milton  and  Holmes.    Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  quote 

^English  Grammar,  p.  39. 


146  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Tliort'au.  Nesfield  '  recognizes  it  as  a  plural  of  coiv.  Carpen- 
ter -  says,  ' '  still  used  in  poetry. ' ' 

The  form  is  rare  in  modern  prose.  Andrew  Lang  vises  it 
at  least  seven  times  in  his  Iliad,  but  that  is  ''prose-poetry." 

The  word  is  used  in  the  following : 

Latimer    1  Bret  Harte    2 

King   James    Bible 15  P.  H.  Hayne 2 

Jeremy  Taylor    1  Andrew  Lang 7 

Milton     1  Swinburre    3 

Herrick     1  Longfellow     2 

Bryant    1  John   Fiske    1 

Southey    3  Stevenson     1 

Matthew  Arnold   2 

Stevenson  in  Kidnapped  says,  "I  met  plenty  of  people, 
grubbing  in  little  miserable  fields  that  would  not  keep  a  cat, 
or  herding  little  kine  about  the  bigness  of  asses." 

The  table  above  proves  that  kine  is  not  exclusively  poetic 
as  some  of  the  authors  quoted  wrote  no  poetry. 


LXVIII     • 
LENGTHY 

Lengthy  was  on  William  Cullen  Bryant's  forbidden  list. 
The  Century  says,  "sometimes  with  the  idea  of  tediousness 
attached."  To  illustrate  this,  the  Century  quoted  a  passage 
from  Southey 's  Doctor;  but  the  same  dictionary  quotes  an 
author  not  so  well  known  as  speaking  of  "a  lengthy  rifle." 
Genung^  says,  "not  to  be  used  indiscriminately  for  long. 
Applied  to  expression,  lengthy  may  be  defined  as  'having 
length  without  force.'  " 

Generally  speaking,  the  foregoing  remarks  about  lengthy 
are  correct,  but  we  sometimes  see  it  used  with  no  unpleasant 


^  Enr/lish  Grammar  Pant  and  Preacnt,  pp.  20,  319. 
'  Pri)iciplrM  of  Enplish  Grammar,  p.  55. 
•*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  319. 


LENGTHY  147 

connotation.  For  instance :  Professor  C.  W.  C.  Oman  speaks 
of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  as  a  pair  of  "lengthy  epic 
poems,"  where  we  are  sure  he  was  not  using  the  word  in  an 
unpleasant  meaning.  A.  H.  Clongh  uses  it  in  the  sense  of 
"long":  "Were  your  descent  more  lengthy  than  mine" — thus 
violating  Genung's  canon.  George  Eliot  in  Silas  Marner 
speaks  of  "a  lengthy  business";  i.e.,  a  long-drawn-out,  tedious 
l)usiness.  Harold  Littledale,  a  distinguished  English  writer, 
says  in  his  volume  on  the  Idylls  e>f  the  King,  "Lady  Guest's 
book  being  still  hardly  accessible  to  the  general  run  of  stu- 
dents, I  am  under  the  necessity  of  making  some  lengthy  ex- 
tracts from  it,"  etc.  Here  lengthy  means  "rather  long," 
"longer  than  I  should  prefer  to  make." 

Lengthy  is  not  a  very  common  word  in  the  literature,  but 
in  its  less  pleasant  sense  often  hits  the  nail  on  the  head  ex- 
actly:  it  is  one  of  those  Avords  that  show  the  speaker's  feeling 
on  the  subject  under  discussion ;  and  it  is  less  harsh  than 
tedious. 

The  word  is  recognized  by  the  New  English  Dictionary, 
Worcester,  the  Standard,  and  Webster.  The  last  named 
quotes  Washington,  Byron,  Jefferson,  and  Archbishop  Trench. 
The  first  named  quotes  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Alexander 
Hamilton.  Genung  uses  it  himself  at  least  three  times  in  his 
books,  with  no  idea  of  tediousness. 

The  authorities  are  about  15  to  1  in  favor  of  using  the 
word :  as  to  its  connotation,  it  may  be  said  that  the  unfavor- 
able one  is  more  common. 

As  an  exact  synonym  of  "long,"  lengthy  has  no  raison 
eVetre;  but,  if  it  should  confine  itself  to  the  idea  of  tedious- 
ness, it  would  till  a  useful  niche  in  the  language. 

Fitzedward  Hall  ^  argued  that  the  word  was  not  an  Ameri- 
canism but  was  used  in  England  before  the  days  of  long- 
winded  American  orations.  He  says  also  that  it  had  been 
adopted  in  England  by  all  but  "finical  purists." 

^  Modern  EngUsli,  1S7.*?,  p.  56. 


148  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

LXIX 

LESSER 

The  double  comparative  lesser,  composed  of  less  +  er,  is  used 
very  frequently  in  literature  from  Elizabethan  times  to  the 
present. 

Doctor  Johnson  was  stoutly  opposed  to  the  word.  Dean 
Alford^  called  it  an  irregularity,  but  said  that  it  was  "sanc- 
tioned by  our  best  writers  .  .  .  uniformly.'!  His  explanation 
of  lesser  is  that  it  came  in  to  balance  greater  in  the  sentence. 
Of  course  this  is  altogether  fanciful  and  unphilological. 

The  Oxford  Dictionary  recognizes  lesser,  quoting  the  King 
James  Bible,  Burke,  Winter,  Tennyson,  Kinglake,  and  Howells. 
The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  with  quotations  from 
the  Bible  and  Shakespeare.  Webster  recognizes  it,  with  pas- 
sages from  the  Bible,  Shakespeare,  Pope,  and  Locke.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Daniel. 

Recent  grammarians — not  the  "lesser"  ones,  however — 
recognize  the  form.  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant-  says  that  the  form 
came  in  about  1470,  and  was  used  by  William  Tyndale  about 
1525.  Bain,^  the  eminent  Scotch  grammarian,  speaks  of  it 
as  "an  admitted  form,"  and  quotes  three  authorities.  Car- 
penter, Nesfield,  and  Baskervill  and  Sewell  recognize  it  'as 
one  of  the  comparatives  of  little.    Nesfield  quotes  Joseph  Hall 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  in  the  following  authorities : 

King  James  Bible  < 1  Burnet    1 

Massinger    2  Lamb 5 

Shakesj^eare  •"'    4  De  Quineey   1 

Dryden   2  Holmes  3 

^The  Queen's  EnoUnh,  IRSG,  pp.  85,  86. 

-The  New  Enf/li.Rh,  I,  314,  322;  II,  198. 

^  Hifjher  EnoIiKh  Grammar,  p.  147. 

■*  The  concoi'danre  shows  other  examples. 

^The  concordance  gives  a  number  of  other  passages. 


LESSEE  149 

Cooper    2  li.  yv'.  Mabie 3 

Matthew  Arnold 2  Stopford    Brooke 1 

Longfellow     1  Wliitiiey   2 

Froudo    1  Saintsbury    3 

Bulwer    2  O.  F.  Euior^cu    1 

Poe    1  Kipling     2 

Hawthorno 1  Edwin  Arnold 1 

Hallam     3  E.  C.  tStednian 1 

These  citations  prove  that  the  ^v()^d  has  been  in  good  lit- 
erary use  in  England  and  in  America  for  nearly  four  centuries. 

The  sentence,  "Of  two  evils,  choose  the  lesser,"  is  familiar 
to  every  reader.  The  Bible  phrase,  "the  lesser  light,"  is 
equally  familiar  and  no  doubt  has  influenced  many  writers. 

The  word  seems  to  be  growing  in  favor  among  men  of  cul- 
ture on  both  sides  of  the  water.  In  the  list  above  are  found 
ten  or  twelve  of  the  most  elegant  authors  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

What  is  the  objection  to  Icssc)-/  Probably  the  idea  that  it 
is  a  double  comparative  and  that  double  comparatives  are  not 
in  keeping  with  the  "genius"  of  modern  English.  The  last 
statement  is  true;  but  what  of  the  first?  Is  lesser  really  a 
double  comparative  in  anything  but  its  etymology'?  Is  less  a 
comparative  to  any  one  but  a  scholar?  Do  we  say  "a  less 
star'''  or  "a  smaller  star"?  Could  we  say  "the  less  light"  or 
must  we  choose  between  "the  lesser  light"  and  "the  smaller 
light"?  Lesser  is  a  fossilized  double  comparative.  Why  an 
English  adjective  cannot  have  two  forms  for  the  comparative 
we  cannot  imagine :  any  student  of  languages  will  recall 
adjectives  with  two  or  more  forms  in  the  comparative  and 
superlative  degrees. 

Lesser  has  made  a  special  place  for  itself  in  the  language. 
For  instance,  the  phrases  "Lesser  Asia",  ''Lesser  Armenia," 
the  lesser  grammarians,"  etc.,  are  well  established,  lesser  being 
equivalent  to  minor.  W^e  may  say  that  lesser  is  the  required 
form  before  the  noun  in  certain  phrases  without  the  article 
and  in  other  phrases  with  the  article. 


150  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

Less  is  sliorn  of  much  of  its  \vorl\  by  both  lesser  and  small. 
We  do  not  say,  "He  is  less  than  his  brother"  but  ^'smaller 
than  his  brother."  An  okl  Bible  term,  "James  the  Less," 
still  fossilizes  the  woi'd  in  its  original  meaning  as  the  com- 
parative of  little. 

De  Quineey  says,  "the  lesser  star  could  not  rise,  before  the 
greater  should  submit  to  eclipse."  ^Matthew  Arnold  says, 
"all  I  want  now  to  point  out  is  that  they  have  this,  and  that 
we  have  it  in  a  much  lesser  degree."  Tennyson  says,  "Woman 
is  the  lesser  man."    Longfellow  says, 

Ah !  with  what  subtle  meaning  did  the  Greek 
Call  thee  the  lesser  mystery  at  the  feast 
Whereof  the  greater  mystery  is  death  I 

Whitney  sayn,  "And  no  sooner  does  Galileo  discover  for  us 
the  lesser  orbs  which  circle  about  Jupiter  and  others  of  our 
sister  planets,  than,"  etc. 

Foremost  has  been  cited  in  another  section  (see  p.  74)  as  a 
double  superlative. 


LXX 

LOAN  AS  A  VERB 

The  Century  Dictionary  calls  loein  (=lend)  "objection- 
able." Richard  Grant  White, ^  A.  S.  Hill,-  Genung,"  and 
Quackenbos^  all  join  in  condemning  it.  Worcester  says, 
"Modern,  and  chiefly  American."  The  Encyclopedic  Diction- 
ary marks  it  as  unusual.  The  Standard' Dictionary  marks  it 
"U.  S."  The  New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Now  chiefly 
U.  S."  All  this  looks  ominous  for  the  word,  though  the  last- 
named  dictionary  quotes  Calhoun  and  some  minor  authors. 

1  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  1-37,  138. 

-  ncr/inninf/s  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  2.".4. 

""(hitlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  .'no. 

^  Praotieal  Rhetoric,  1M)(!,  p.  2:i<). 


LOAN  AS  A   VEEB  151 

"Webster's  International  recognizes  it,  citing  Chancellor 
Kent  and  an  obscure  author  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The 
)nost  ardent  and  most  prominent  defender  of  the  word  is 
Lounsbury/  the  doughty  champion  of  many  words  oppressed 
and  abused  by  the  pedants  and  purists.  As  Lounsbury's  The 
Standard  of  Usage  /n  English  may  not  be  accessible  to  all  of 
our  readers,  it  may  be  well  to  epitomize  his  treatment  of 
loan  as  a  verb:  Loan  is  a  Scandinavian  Avord,  which  as  a 
noun  supplanted  the  corresponding  Anglo-Saxon  word.  In 
an  act  of  parliament  of  1542-43  it  is  used  as  a  verb.  After 
occasional  use  in  England,  it  was  transplanted  to  America : 
"though  not  American  in  origin,  it  is  American  by  adoption." 
Joel  Barlow  used  it  in  1778.  For  some  reason,  says  Louns- 
bury,  it  has  been  made  the  subject  of  liostile  criticism,  although 
it  has  antiquity,  precedent,  and  analogy  in  its  favor. 
Those  who  are  willing  to  follow  one  great  leader  can  use 
loan  with  Professor  Lounsbury's  uncpialified  approval:  the 
overwhelming  sentiment  of  scholars  is  against  it,  though  a 
noun  can  become  a  verb  at  any  moment. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  only  three  times — once  in 
H.  W.  Mabie's  and  once  in  Professor  F.  E.  Schelling's  bocks, 
both  xVmerican  writers,  men  of  superior  culture ;  and  once  in 
Rudy^rd  Kipling's  serious  verse. 

The  weight  of  numbers  is  certainly  against  loan;  but  Louns- 
bury's name  is  a  tower  of  strength,  and  the  other  authorities 
are  of  high  order,  though  few  in  number. 

Popular  usage  in  America  is  very  strong  in  favor  of  loan 
but  the  writers  do  not  use  it.  Indeed  the  use  of  loan  as  a  verb 
has  no  raison  d'etre  whatever  at  present:  it  has  made  no 
attempt  to  establish  any  special  territory  for  itself  and  is  a 
useless  synonym  of  lend.  The  bankers  might  make  it  a  tech- 
nical term ;  among  real  estate  dealers  it  has  considerable 
vogue. 

^Thc  Sta>i(l<ir<I  nf  Usayr  in  Eniilisli.  pp.  1203-205. 


152  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

LXXI 

MATHEMATICS— SINGULAR  OR  PLURAL? 

The  (|iiestion  raised  in  the  title  to  this  section  might  seem 
to  have  l)ut  one  possible  answer ;  yet  it  is  only  a  short  time 
since  mathematics  was  used  as  a  plural  by  eminent  authors, 
scholars,  and  literati. 

A.  S.  HilP  says,  "more  frequently  singular."  Genung- 
recognizes  both  numbers.  Most  of  the  dictionaries,  if  they 
say  anything  in  regard  to  the  matter,  give  the  singular. 

The  plural,  however,  occurs  occasionally  in  the  writings  of 
Bishop  Berkeley  and  of  De  Quincey ;  at  least  twenty-two 
times  in  the  essays  of  Sir  William  Hamilton  (died  1856)  ; 
occasionally  in  Poe,  Huskin,  Christopher  North,  Browning, 
Matthew  Arnold  and  John  Stuart  Mill — all  comparatively  re- 
cent. The  fact  that  Hamilton  used  it  so  often  is  good  proof  that 
it  was  in  vogue  in  academic  circles  in  Great  Britain  in  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  A  prominent  English 
scholar,  writing  in  America  in  1868,  uses  the  plural.  This 
fact,  coupled  with  its  use  by  Poe,  would  prove  that  the  plural 
had  some  vogue  in  America  in  the  generations  just  back  of  us. 

Poe  in  the  Purloined  Letter  says,  "The  mathematics  are  the 
science  of  form  and  quantity."  De  Quincey  says,  "Mathe- 
matics, it  is  w^ell  known,  are  extensively  cultivated  in  the  north 
of  England."  Sir  William  Hamilton  says,  "mathematics  are 
of  primary  importance  as  a  logical  exercise  of  reason." 

The  singular  seems  to  be  universal  in  America  at  present. 

^  Bcginninfis  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  59. 
»  Outlinen  of  Rhetoric,  1900^  p.  :J20. 


ME  AS  A   QUASl-XOMIXATIVE  153 

LXXII 

ME  AS  A  QUASI-XOMIXATIVE 

To  tlie  "lesser  grammarians"  the  heading  of  this  section 
will  bring  a  shudder.  The  purist  "svill  elose  this  book  in  scorn 
and  derision.  None  the  less,  the  Avriter  ^vill  give  a  fair  and 
impartial  account  of  nu  in  its  use  as  a  nominative  case  of  the 
pronoun. 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant  ^  in  his  well-known  volumes  shows  that  )ne 
as  a  nominative  runs  through  English  literature  for  centuries. 
It  occurs  both  in  the  predicative  position,  that  is,  after  the 
verb,  and  also  alone  in  reply  to  a  cpiestion;  e.g.,  "Who  said 
that?"    "Me."    It  is  especially  common  in  the  drama. 

As  me  (=as  I)  occurs  in  Scott,  Shakespeare,  Steele,  and 
Charles  Kingsley.  In  order  to  account  for  the  me,  some  gram- 
marians have  construed  as  as  a  preposition.  This  is  utterly 
unsatisfactory,  for  it  is  easier  to  construe  me  as  a  fossilized 
nominative  than  to  parse  as  as  a  preposition. 

Than  me  (=than  I)  is  as  common  as  as  me.  It  is  found 
in  Shakespeare,  Swift,  Prior,  Pope,  Southey,  and  A.  H. 
Clough.  Nesfield,-  one  of  our  best  living  grammarians,  parses 
than  in  these  locutions  as  a  preposition  with  the  objective. 
Dean  Alford  ^  treated  it  in  the  same  way  fifty  years  ago.  The 
writer,  however,  had  rather  take  me  as  a  quasi-nominative. 

No  one  would  dare  to  say  that  the  English  language  has 
ever  permitted  the  use  of  me  at  the  head  of  the  sentence;  e.g., 
"Me  told  you."  But,  in  an  isolated  position,  as  "Who  told 
you  that?"  answer,  "Me,"  it  has  been  running  in  the  liter- 
ature and  in  polite  society  for  several  centuries.  Again  :  after 
the   verb,    e.g.,  it   ivas   me,   that's  me,   cited   by   Oliphant.* 

ir/fc  Xcw  English,  II,  107,  15;». 
^  En(]Ush  Grammar  I'axt  aniJ  I'rcficnt,  p.  04. 
3  The  Quecn'x  Kiuilish,  1S(;0,  p.  100. 
*Thc  Xcii;  EnijJish,  II,  pp.  107,  1.:.9. 


154  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

This  brings  us  to  the  much-disputed,  never-to-be-settled,  it 
is  me.  Those  who  have  no  respect  for  authority  or  recognize 
no  authority  in  huiguage,  might  as  well  skip  over  the' rest  of 
this  section.  If  there  is  no  tribunal  of  appeal ;  if  every  man 
is  to  have  his  own  opinion  and  not  be  influenced  by  the  usage 
of  polite  society  and  of  great  authors,  and  by  the  opinion  of 
the  learned,  then  no  disputed  points  can  ever  be  settled.  In 
law,  politics,  religion,  Ave  accept  the  mandates  of  a  higher 
court;  then  why  not  do  so  in  language? 

Now,  the  purists  and  pedants  cannot  conceive  how  it  is 
me  can  ever  be  right;  they  will  not  listen  to  argument.  The 
great  scholars,  however,  can  conceive  of  me  as  a  cpiasi-nomina- 
tive  afto'  the  verb.  We  find  the  phrase  it  is  me  stoutly 
defended  by  Earle,^  Lounsbury,-  Latham,^  Alford,-  Kellner,^ 
A.  J.  Ellis,*'  Jespersen,^  Sweet,®  and  other  scholars  of  inter- 
national fame,  not  to  supplant  it  is  I  in  dignified  or  solemn 
discourse  but  as  permissible  in  colloquial  English.  Latham 
recognized  it  as  a  "secondary  nominative."  Alford  said 
that  everybody  used  it  in  England  in  his  day;  Henry 
Sweet  says  the  same  thing.  Professor  John  Earle  not  only 
corroborated  the  statement  of  these  two  scholars  but  treated 
it  is  /  as  "an  intruder."  Leon  Kellner,  the  Austrian  scholar, 
in  his  history  of  English  syntax,  returns  several  times  to  it  is 
me,  explaining  its  origin.  Lounsbury  says  that  it  is  used  by 
Shakespeare,  Marlowe,  Greene,  Lodge,  Fletcher,  and  Addison. 
(Who  will  not  accept  the  usage  of  Addison,  the  famous  author 
of  the  Spectator?)  A.  J.  Ellis,"  one  of  the  most  profound 
students  of  the  language,  said  in  1864  that  it  is  me  is  good 
English,  and  it  is  I,  a  mistaken  purism. 

^  Philologij  0/  the  Englinh  Toikjuc,  edition  of  ISST,  pp.  nnO,  540. 

-  Historij  of  the  EiKjlisli  Tjin<ju<i(jc,  pp.  K;.",  127:!. 

"'  Ilistorij  of  the  Englisli  Language,  p.  HSG. 

"  The  Queen's  English,  1866,  pp.  154fif. 

^  II istorieal  Outlines  of  English  fiipitaj',  pp.   12,  135. 

«Note  F,  The  Queen's  English,  edition  of  1866. 

''Progress  in  Language,  §§  184,  194. 

^  l^hort  It istoricril  lUiglisJi  (Irammar,  p.  105. 


ME  AS  A   QrASI-XOMIXATirE  155 

Richard  Grant  White,  the  most  austere  of  all  our  verbalists, 
said  that  it  is  mc  is  not  entirely  vulgar.  George  P.  Marsh, 
a  pioneer  in  English  studies  in  America,  said  that  it  was 
heard  ver}^  frequently  among  educated  people  in  England 
but  not  in  America.  Dean  Alford,  in  writing  to  a  number 
of  scholars,  had  to  decide  between  it  will  he  I  and  it  will  he 
me,  and  used  the  latter.  More  recently,  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 
spoke  of  "our  common  it's  me/'  though  he  did  not  approve 
of  it.  The  American  scholar  0.  F.  Emerson^  says,  "found 
in  America,  and  may  be  justified  in  opposition  to  the 
schools."  Jespersen,  the  distinguished  Dane,  defends  it  is 
me  very  strenuously.  In  his  Progress  in  Language  (1894) 
he  says,  "The  eminent  author  of  Enrhj  English  Pronuncia- 
tion (Ellis)  is  no  doubt  right  in  defending  it's  me  as  the 
natural 'form  against  the  blames  of  quasi-grammarians.  .  .  . 
It  is  me  is  certainly  more  natural  than  it  is  I."  Jespersen 
says  that  "grammar  schools  and  school  grammars"  have 
interfered  with  the  spread  of  this  phrase. 

It  is  me  has  been  treated  as  a  barbarism  in  so  many  school- 
books  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  state  the  case  for  the 
prosecution.  A  few  textbooks  may  be  mentioned  on  account 
of  their  long  popularity.  Quackenbos-  says,  "as  unphilo- 
logieal  as  it  is  vulgar.  .  .  .  Those  who  condone  it  is  me 
must,  if  consistent,  tolerate  it  is  us,  these  are  them,  the  step- 
ping-stone to  them's  them."  A.  S.  HilP  classes  it  as  an 
error  but  says  that  it  is  used  in  England  by  many  educated 
persons.  Nesfield,''  one  of  the  leading  recent  grammarians  of 
England,  advises  against  the  use  of  it  is  me. 

If  human  testimony  can  send  a  man  to  the  gallows,  it  might 
certainly  estal)lisli  tlie  fact  that,  in  1859,  1864,  1867,  and 
1910,  it  is  me  was  used  by  the  educated  classes  of  England. 
Some  educated  Americans,  also,  can  testify  that  it  slips  very 

^History  of  the  Enylisli  Language,  p.  324. 

-Practical  Rhetoric,  edition  of  l.^OG,  p.  230. 

"  Bcf/iniiiiigs  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  100  nnd  noto. 

*  English  flrammar.  Past  and  Present,  p.  204. 


156  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

naturally  out  of  their  months  in  spite  of  Marsh's  statement 
that  no  educated  American  would  use  it. 

As  to  the  origin  of  it's  me,  scholars  are  not  unanimous. 
Latham,  one  of  the  earlier  English  scholars,  compared  it 
with  the  French  c'est  moi.  More  recent  scholars — Earle, 
Lounsbury,  and  others — tliiiik  that  the  French  phrase  may 
have  influenced  the  English.  Jespersen,  however,  believes 
that  I  tends  to  become  me  after  the  verb;  the  pronoun  gets 
into  the  place  usually  occupied  by  the  object  and  so  takes 
the  objective  form.  He  cites  the  Danish  dot  er  mig  as  anal- 
ogous to  the  English  H  is  me.  "We  have  it  on  good  authority, 
also,  that  it  is  me  is  almost  universal  in  Norwegian  literature, 
while  it  is  I  is  just  coming  in.  A  pretty  safe  theory,  then, 
would  be  that  the  English  it  is  me  is  a  blending  of  the 
Teutonic  and  French  post-verbal  pronoun  forms. 

As  to  the  time  when  it's  me  came  into  the  language,  we 
cannot  be  certain.  Kellner  says,  ''T  do  not  find  any  instance 
of  this  now  widely  spread  use  before  the  eighteenth  century"; 
but  Oliphant  ^  cites  a  case  of  it  was  me  from  Wycherley 
(about  1660). 

The  following  passages-  will  show  how  this  quasi-nomina- 
tive me  has  been  used  by  some  of  the  standard  authors. 
Wycherley  says,  "It  was  me  you  followed."  Shelley,  in  his 
Ode  to  the  West  Wind,  addresses  the  wind : 

Be  thou,  Spirit  fierce, 
My  spirit!    Bo  thou  me,  impetuous  one! 

Rossetti  in  Siriitton  Water  says: 

In  God  's  name,  Janet,  is  it  vie 
Thy  ghost  has  come  to  seek? 

Steele  in  the  Spectator  (132)  says:  "do  not  think  such 
a  man  as  thyself  terrible  for  tliy  garb,  nor  such  a  one  as  we 

1  The  .AViP  English,  II,  p.  107. 

-For  further  oxamplos,  sco  C.  Alphonso  Smith's  Fitudics  in  Enfjlish  fiytita-x. 
Smith  ritos  eight  passages  from  Shakespeare,  one  each  from  Oohlsmith,  firay, 
J.  M.  r.arrie,  Browning,  ■V\Tiittier,  Emerson.  St(>venson.  and  Kipling. 


MEMOBANDUMS  157 

contemptible  for  mine."  Kingsley  makes  Hereward  say, 
"We  have  failed,  just  because  there  were  a  dozen  men  in 
England  as  good  as  me,  every  man  wanting  his  own  way." 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  sa3-s,  "I  am  my  brother  and  my 
brother  is  me."    Alice  Gary  in  a  poem  writes: 

Ouee  when  we  lingered,  sorrow-proof, 
My  gentle  love  and   lui . 

Stevenson  in  Treasure  Island  says,  "But  Silver,  from  the 
other  boat,  looked  sharply  over  and  called  out  to  know  if 
that  were  me."  Jespersen,  in  his  explanation  of  this  me, 
cites  numerous  passages  from  the  literature.  (See  note  7, 
p.  154,  above.) 

It  may  be  added  that  it  is  her,  it  is  him,  and  other  like 
phrases  have  little  standing  with  scholars  and  little  authority 
in  standard  literature. 


LXXIII 

MECHANICS 

Mechanics  is  so  overwhelmingly  singular  in  its  grammar 
that  the  author  saw  only  one  plural,  whicli  was  in  one  of  Chris- 
topher North 's  essays. 


LXXIV 

MEMORANDUMS 

About  fift}'  years  ago,  Richard  Grant  White  made  a 
strong  plea  for  the  s-plural  of  memorandum  instead  of  the 
Latin  form.  White  used  it  himself  in  his  books ;  he  also  cited 
the  word  from  Shakespeare.^  Webster  recognizes  the  word, 
quoting  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds.     The  Century  recognizes  it  as 

*  Used  liy  tho  Prinro  in  1  Henry  IV ,  Til,  iii. 


158  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

the  less  frequent  ])lur;il,  and  (juotes  Ijeauinont.  Carpenter^ 
reeonmiends  the  foi'iu  memorandums,  though  he,  of  course, 
recognizes  the  Latin  plural  in  -a.  He  expresses  the  hope  that 
the  familiar  words  like  memorcnidum,  bandit,  and  formula  will 
soon  be  pluralized  by  adding  a,  instead  of  keeping  their  foreign 
plurals — "a  consunnnation  devoutly  to  be  wished,"  we  add 
heartily,  Meiklejohn  treats  memorandums-  as  "fully  natur- 
alized" and  gives  only  the  s-plural.  Bain,"  another  Scotch 
grammarian,  takes  the  same  position.  This  would  indicate 
that  Carpenter's  wish  is  being  fulfilled  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Avater.    Kittredge  and  Farley*  recognize  it. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  form  memorandums  in  the  Letters 
of  the  Time  of  James  I;  several  times  in  Defoe's  History  of  the 
Plague;  twice  in  Boswell ;  once  in  Goldsmith. 

While  a  large  number  of  educated  people  take  special  pains 
to  say  memoranda,  they  might,  in  view  of  the  facts  in  the  case, 
save  themselves  the  trouble.  The  merchants  are  using  the 
s-form  in  thousands  of  notebooks  given  to  their  customers ;  this 
is  popularizing  the  form.  A  helping  hand  from  the  teacher's 
desk,  the  pulpit,  and  the  editorial  sanctum  could  soon  sweep 
the  word  into  universal  popularity.  In  the  same  way,  "cri- 
terions",  "beaus",  "radiuses",  "phenomenons, "  and  other 
English  plurals  would  soon  spread  through  the  language, 
Genung  gave  "criterions"  a  start  in  one  of  his  college  text- 
books. Only  a  small  number  of  the  foreign  Avords  in  Eng- 
lish would  long  resist  this  movement.  Our  pupils  need  relief; 
foreign  plurals  are  a  weariness  to  the  spirit.  If  a  freshman 
uses  "dictums"  instead  of  "dicta,"  shall  we  criticize  him 
severely?  He  should  rather  be  commended  for  following  his 
language  instinct. 

Defoe  (Plague)  says,  "my  memor(nidui)is  of  tliese  things," 
etc.     Boswell  in  his  Johnson  says,  "among  his  resolutions  or 

''■Principles  of  Enc/lifih  Grammar,  p.  r^Ct. 
-  The  English  Lanr/uage,  p.  IS. 
^ Hinhcr  EnrjUsli  Cirammar,  p.  12S. 
*  Advanced  EtifilisJi  Grammar,  p.  ."". 


MIGHTY  AS  AN  ADVEBB  159 

memorandums  .  .  .  there  is"  etc.  Again,  in  a  letter  to  John- 
son he  says,  "I  like  your  little  moiwrandums,"  etc.  His  writ- 
ing thus  to  the  great  Cham  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  the 
Doctor  himself  did  not  object  to  the  Englisli  plural. 

LXXV 

METAPHYSICS— SINGULAR  OR  PLURAL? 

Mctaphijsics  is  not  plural  as  often  as  mathematics.  Sir  Wil- 
liam Hamilto2i,  who  used  the  latter  frequently  as  a  plural, 
treated  tlie  former,  regularly  as  a  singular.  Coleridge,  how- 
ever, used  metaphysics  as  a  plural  at  least  three  times  in  his 
essays,  and  the  writer  has  seen  it  once  in  Macaula}'.  In  his 
essay  on  Robert  ^Montgomery.  IMacaulay  says,  ''Mr.  Robert 
Montgomery's  metaphysics  are  not  at  present  our  game." 
This  was  in  1830,  and  is  the  most  recent  case  recorded  by  the 
author  of  this  volume. 

Coleridge  about  fifteen  years  earlier  said.  "Aye,  here  now! 
(exclaimed  the  critic)  here  come  Coleridge's  metaphysics." 
.  .  .  "Poor  unlucky  Metaphysicks !  and  what  are  they?" 

No  doubt  iMacaulay  liad  heard  the  plural  in  academic  circles 
while  he  was  at  college. 

LXXVI 

MIGHTY  AS  AX  ADVERB 

Phrases  like  "I  am  mighty  glad  to  see  you,"  as  used  in 
some  parts  of  America,  often  strike  strangers  as  peculiar ; 
but,  like  man}'  other  colloquial  words  in  the  New  World,  )nighty 
as  an  adverb  was  brought  over  by  the  early  settlers  at  a  time 
when  it  was  reputable  London  English. 

Webster  says,  "Colloquial."  but  quotes  Jeffrey  and  Dod- 
dridge. The  Century  says,  "Colloquial,"  but  quotes  Prior 
and   Sheridan.     Tlie   Encyclopedic   Dictionary   says,   "Collo- 


160  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

quial, ' '  but  quotes  Prior.  Baskervill  and  Sewell '  say,  ' '  The 
adverb  mighty  is  very  common  in  colloquial  English.  ...  It 
is  only  occasionally  used  in  literary  English."  They  (luote 
Goldsmith,  Scott,  Bulwer,  and  Thackeray.  The  New  English 
Dictionaiy  says,  "Now  colloquial  or  familiar."  It  (juotes 
Coverdale,  Barrow,  Defoe,  Gray,  Dickens,  Mrs.  Carlyle,  and 
Stevenson. 

All  of  tlie  authorities  cited  above  agree  that  this  locution 
used  to  be  literary  but  is  now  colloquial.  After  watching  the 
word  carefully  in  the  literature,  the  writer  can  name  the  fol- 
lowing autliorities  that  use  it : 

Coverda]e     1      Burke    1 

Defoe    4       Thomas  Jefferson 1 

Pepys     4       Lamb    4 

Steele    1       Tennyson     1 

Dr.   Johnson    13       Holmes   4 

Boswell     1       Thackeray    6 

Prior     8      Browning   1 

Pope   2       Stevenson     18 

Miss  Burney   1  Philadelphia  Press    (editorial)  .  .    1 

When  did  this  word  drop  out  of  the  literary  language  ?  It 
is  found  in  the  literature  from  the  Cursor  Mundi  to  living 
authors  and  editors.  It  is  vigorous  in  the  polite  circles  of  the 
older  states  and  in  parts  of  the  West. 

The  writer  is  especially  interested  in  this  word,  as  his  use 
of  it  sometimes  excites  comment  in  some  of  the  newer  states 
of  this  country. 

Jefferson,  for  Virginia,  and  Holmes,  for  Massachusetts, 
represent  polite  English  of  the  older  commonwealths.  In 
recent  English,  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  should  be  regarded 
as  an  authority.     (See  the  table.) 

It  may  be  said  that  the  word  is  not  quite  as  good  as  "very" 
for  the  solemn  and  dignified  places ;  e.g.,  epic  poetry,  pulpit 
style,  and  such  places.     If  we  were  translating  Homer,  we 

'  English  Grammar,  p.  1S7. 


MIGHTY  AS  AN  ADVERB  161 

should  hardly  say,  "Hector's  wounds  were  migJiiy  tleep.'" 
Again  :  if  we  were  delivering  a  sermon,  we  should  prefer  to 
say  "very";  as,  "The  words  of  our  text  are  very,  (not 
mighty),  rich  with  meaning."  Even  literary  English  has 
its  gradations :  words  in  good  standing  are  not  on  a  dead 
level. 

The  New  English  Dictionary  comes  nearer  hitting  the  mark 
tiian  the  others  quoted.  The  others  said  "colloquial"  and 
stopped  there,  but  the  New  English  Dictionary  said  "collo- 
quial or  familiar."  If  this  means  literature  of  a  familiar  or 
free-and-easy  type,  it  is  right,  since  the  passages  referred 
to  in  our  table  are  generally  on  that  order.  Tennyson's  case 
occurs  in  a  conversation  of  the  confidential,  free-and-easy 
style.  The  other  recent  authors  write  very  frequently  in  the 
same  manner. 

The  point  that  the  writer,  in  conclusion,  contends  for  is 
that  mighty  used  as  an  adverb  is  not  a  provincialism:  (1) 
because  it  is  not  confined  to  any  one  part  of  the  country ; 
(2)  because  it  is  used  by  such  eminent  writers  as  Tennyson, 
Holmes,  Thackeray,  Browning,  and  Stevenson. 

Edmund  Burke  (Conciliation)  says,  "All  this  is  mighty 
well."  Boswell  represents  Johnson  as  using  the  word  fre- 
quently. Holmes  (Professor  at  the  Breakfast  Tahle)  says, 
^^ Mighty  close  quarters  they  were  where  the  young  man  John 
bestowed  himself  and  his  furniture."  Tennyson  (Holy  Grail, 
1.  699)  says, 

And  mighty  rererent  at  our  grace  was  he. 

Browning  (The  Bing  and  the  Bool')  says, 

Mighty  fine — 
But  nobody  cared  ask  to  paint  the  same. 

Stevenson  (Francois  Villon)  says,  "The  idiotic  Tabary  be- 
came mighty  confidential  as  to  his  past  life";  '^ Mighty  polite 
they  showed  themselves,  and  made  him  many  fine  speeches  in 
return,"     Stevenson  uses  the  w^ord  ten  times  in  Kidnapped. 


162  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

The  word  may  be  called  literary  but  not  suitable  for  solemn 
diction,  though  used  by  a  good  many  living  authors  of  con- 
siderable repute. 

LXXVII 

THE  MISPLACED  EELATIYE  CLAUSE 

In  Sestos  he  admitted,  a  deputation  from  Poland  into  Lis  presence, 
u'Jiom  he  a.<itoni.<ihe(i,  etc.     (Milman.) 

At  the  time  wlien  this  great  battle  was  fought,  two  children  had 
already  been  born  in  England  who  were  destined,  etc.     (John  FisVe.) 

The  relative  clause  is  not  always  placed  near  its  antecedent 
but  is  often  separated  from  it  by  a  group  of  words  varying  in 
number.  Most  of  the  textbooks  on  rhetoric  are  loud  in  con- 
demning these  sentences.  Possibly  they  are  right ;  but  is  not 
their  rule  a  theoretical  one?  Certainly  it  is  not  based  upon 
the  overwhelming  usage  of  the  best  authors ;  for  a  large  num- 
ber of  these  use  sentences  like  the  two  quoted  from  Fiske  and 
Milman.  The  rhetorical  scholars  give  ns  a  pretty  theory, 
which  perhaps  has  some  pedagogic  value  as  tending  to  give 
coherence  to  the  disorganized  sentences  of  our  youths.  If, 
however,  a  bright  student,  trained  by  us  to  watch  the  usage 
of  the  great  authors,  brings  us  a  group  of  sentences  which 
he  has  found  in  the  works  of  great  men  and  which  are  exactly 
like  some  we  have  been  condemning  in  the  lecture-room,  it  is 
rather  embarrassing. 

If  Milman  and  Fiske,  two  of  our  ^ost  fluent  and  entertain- 
ing stylists,  do  not  suit  the  reader,  he  can  refer  to  the  sub- 
joined table,  in  which  the  author  has  recorded  a  large  number 
of  the  highest  authorities  as  violating  this  rule: 

Latimer    5  Shakespeare 1 

Prayer  Book  Psalter 25  Sir   Thomas  Browne 4 

King  James  Bible 28  Marlowe   2 

Bacon 3  Milton     3 


THE  MISPLACED  EELATIVE  CLAUSE 


163 


Jeremy  Taylor   38 

Thomas  Fuller   1 

Bunyan  5 

Baxter    4 

Joseph   Hall    1 

Bishop  Burnet 17 

John   Evelyn 1 

Pope   4 

Mary  Wortley  Montagu 2 

Temple  1 

Swift    3 

Addison    28 

Steele    4 

FieldiuiT 4 

Dr.  H.  Blair 19 

Dr.   Johnson    29 

Boswell     5 

Goldsmith     16 

Lamb    11 

Coleridge 10 

Christopher  North    .3 

Southey    .1 

William   Hazlitt 10 

Horace  Walpole   1 

Sir  William  Blacl:stone 1 

Gihbon     1 

Thomas  Warton   1 

Thomas  Paine 1 

Walter  Scott 18 

Burke    11 

Irving 8 

Franklin     6 

Jeffrey    2 

Hallam   13 

De  Quincey   14 

I.  D  'Israeli  1 

Ruskin      12 

Havrthorne     8 

Carlyle    Q 

Emerson   21 

Poe    29 

D.  G.  Mitchell 1 


(ieorge  William  Curtis 5 

George  Eliot  13 

Dickens    10 

Trench    7 

Audubon     1 

Thackeray    70 

Bayard  Taylor   2 

Matthew   Arnold    13 

F"'roude    28 

Daniel  Webster    1 

Wendell  Phillips 1 

Sir  William  Hamilton 2 

Benjamin  Disraeli   1 

J.  H.  Newman 2 

iSaintsbury    li) 

Thomas  Campbell 1 

Churton   Collins    1 

Phillips   Brooks    (i 

Lowell    12 

Dean  Stanley   9 

Morris    4 

Sir  Henry  Taylor l(i 

William  Minto    4 

Walter  Bagehot   2 

Justin   McCarthy    3 

Dr.  C.   Geikie 1 

Cooper    3 

Holmes   16 

G.  W.  Cable 3 

Stopford  Brooke    12 

G.  K.  Chesterton 8 

T.   N.   Page 3 

Mrs.  H.  Ward 9 

Stevenson ,5 

A.  J.  W.  Hare 1 

E.  L.  Godkin .' .  .  ^ 1 

J.  R.  Green 2 

Kittredge  and  Greenough 1 

John   Lubbock    4 

Lounsbury    13 

Genung 10 

Milman     3 


164  STFDIFS  IN  USAGE 

Kingsley     2  Ilcnny  Diummoiid    1 

Herbert  Speiieor 1  W.  I).  Howolls 1 

Fiske 6  I'rice  Collier    6 

Prescott    1  Mabic    21 

Motley    8  James  Bryce 3 

Maeaulay   24 

Tlie  lists  show  more  than  100  authors  and  800  passages. 
Among  the  worst  violators  of  the  rule  are  the  Bible,  the 
Prayer  Book,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Bishop  Burnet,  Addison,  Dr. 
Johnson,  Dr.  Blair,  Scott,  Thackeray,  Poe,  Maeaulay,  and 
Froude — a  hall  of  fame.  Hardly  less  careless  of  their  rela- 
tives are  Coleridge,  Ilazlitt,  Burke,  Lamb,  De  Quincey,  Rus- 
kin,  Emerson,  Lowell,  Stanley,  Mrs.  Ward,  Lounsbury, 
Holmes,  Dickens,  and  Matthew  Arnold. 

Professor  Genung  violates  his  own  canon;  who  has  the 
heart  to  blame  him?  The  tables  will  show  that  he  does 
not  try  to  keep  his  own  rigid  rules.  "When  he  loses  himself 
in  his  subject  and  forgets  the  letter  of  the  law  in  keeping 
its  spirit,  he  forgets,  ignores  the  strict  rules  that  he  lays 
down  in  his  textbooks,  and  uses  the  English  of  the  great 
authors. 

The  rule  under  discussion  is  made  in  the  interests  of  clear- 
ness. Now,  the  type-sentences  at  the  head  of  this  section  may 
fail  somewhat  in  absolute  precision  but  certainly  not  in  per- 
spicuity. Any  intelligent,  or  even  average,  reader  can  easily 
see  their  meaning.  Is  not  the  inile  misleading?  Does  it  not, 
as  generally  stated,  make  the  impression  that  it  is  based 
upon  the  overwhelming  usage  of  the  great  authors?  The 
rule  needs  careful  restatement  and  qualification.  It  may  be 
added,  however,  that  the  great  authors  more  frequently  put 
the  relative  immediately  after  its  antecedent. 

Let  us  quote  a  few  passages  showing  the  misplaced  relative 
in  some  of  the  standard  authors.  Cardinal  Newman  (His- 
torical Sketches)  says,  "strangers  were  ever  flocking  to  it, 
whose  combat  was  to  he  with   intellectual,  not  physical  dif- 


MISEELATED  PAFTICIPLE   (OB  GEEUXD)  165 

ficulties,"  etc.  Emerson  says  (Love),  "It  is  a  fact  often 
observed,  that  men  have  written  good  verses  under  the  inspi- 
ration of  passion,  who  cannot  write  well  under  any  other 
circumstances."  Again  (The  Poet):  "Vitruvius  announces 
the  old  opinion  of  artists,  that  no  architect  can  build  any 
house  well,  who  does  not  know  something  of  anatomy."  De 
Quincey  in  Lake  Poets  says,  "A  young  lady  became  a  neigh- 
bor, and  a  daily  companion  of  Coleridge's  walks,  whom  I 
will  not  describe  more  particularly  than  hy  saying  that  intel- 
lectually she  teas  very  much  superior  to  Mrs.  Coleridge." 
Again:  "A  rupture  between  the  parties  followed,  which  no 
reconciliation  has  ever  heeded."  Matthew  Arnold  (Function 
of  Criticism),  says,  "and  that  therefore  labor  may  be  vainly 
spent  in  attempting  it,  which  anight  with  more  fruit  he  used 
in  preparing  for  it,  in  renelering  it  possible":  also.  ''Poems 
are  separated  one  from  another  which  possess  a  kinship  of 
subject,"  etc.     (Essay  on   Wordsworth.) 

A  volume  could  easily  be  filled  with  such  sentences  from 
standard  authors. 


LXXVIII 

MISEELATED   PARTICIPLE    (OR  GERUND) 

My  farm  consisted  of  about  twenty  acres  of  excellent  land,  Imving 
given  an  hundred  pounds  for  my  predecessor's  good-will.     (Goldsmith.) 

'Saving  passed  away  the  greatest  part  of  the  morning  in  hearing  the 
knight 's  reflections,  which  were  partly  private  and  partly  political,  he 
asked  me  if  I  would  smoke  a  pipe  with  him.     (Addison.) 

The  sentences  quoted  above  are  typical :  they  inin  through 
the  whole  of  our  literature,  as  the  most  casual  reader  can. 
testify. 

The  "error"  involved  in  these  sentences  is  called  the  "mis- 
related",   "dislocated"",   or   "dangling"   participle;    while   a 


166  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

closely  related  error  involves  the  verbal  nomi  or  gerund ;  e.g., 
"Mathematics  is  deliberately  suppressed  in  trtjing  to  induce 
an  equal  fondness  for  Latin," 

This  construction  is  condemned  in  practically  all  the  best 
textbooks  on  grammar  and  rhetoric.  A.  S.  Hill/  in  his  high 
school  Rhetoric,  says,  "Sometimes  a  sentence  lacks  unity  of 
form  because  it  contains  a  participle,  an  adjective,  or  some 
other  word  that  hangs  loose  in  it."  Under  this  head  he  puts 
all  verbal  forms  in  -ing  that  do  not  hang  close  to  some  other 
word.  He  illustrates  by  sentences  like  those  at  the  head  of 
this  section,  and  uses  the  sentence  quoted  in  the  foregoing 
paragraph.  Herrick  and  Damon-  call  these  words  "loose," 
"dangling,"  or  "hanging,"  participles.  Sentences  in  which 
they  are  found  are  called  "inadmissible."  Genung^  gives  the 
rule,  "Express  clearly  the  subject  of  a  participle."  He  calls 
the  failure  to  do  this  a  "frequent  error  of  hasty  writers,"  but 
admits  that  the  construction  is  allowable  sometimes  when  there 
is  no  danger  of  ambiguity.  Canby  and  his  coadjutors,'*  in 
their  textbook,  say,  "Participles  must  be  watched;  they  can- 
not be  trusted  without  strict  surveillance."  According  to 
the  most  prominent  teachers  of  rhetoric,  then,  the  so-called 
"misrelated  participle"  has  little  standing.  If  these  writers 
are  to  be  our  authorities,  then,  a  large  number,  or  most,  of 
our  best  authors,  scholars,  stylists,  professors  of  rhetoric 
themselves,  use  sentences  that  are  inadmissible  and  must  be 
called  hasty  writers.  The  rhetorical  scholars  do  not  make  it 
quite  clear  why  this  use  of  the  participle,  etc.,  is  so  inexcus- 
able ;  they  simply  denounce  it  in  general  terms  as  violating 
the  unity  of  form.  Some  of  the  grammarians  are  equally 
severe.  Henry  Sweet,^  one  of  the  greatest  writers  on  syntax, 
says,  "This  harsh  construction   is  quite  a   mannerism  with 

^  Beginninps  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  423-425. 
^Neiv  Composition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  149. 
^  Outlines  of  lihetoric,  p.  58.     Practical  Rhetoric.  \).   115. 
^  Enylisli  Composition  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p.  l."0. 
^Neto  English  Grammar,  part  II,  p.  125. 


MISEELATED  PABTICIPLE   (OK  GERUND)  167 

some  writers,"  Carpenter  says  participles  should,  as  a  rule, 
limit  a  "specific  noun  or  pronoun."  Baskervill  and  Sewell 
call  such  constructions  "a  misuse  of  the  participial  phrase," 
but  illustrate  by  quoting  sentences  from  Franklin,  Goldsmith, 
Burke,  and  Scott.  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott '  calls  it  the  "Participle 
with  Implied  Noun,"  and  says,  "It  is  scarcely  correct  though 
not  very  uncommon."  These  grammarians  are  not  much 
clearer  than  the  writers  on  rhetoric  in  pointing  out  the  spe- 
cial objection  to  this  construction.  Sweet  calls  it  harsh,  but 
does  not  show  why  it  is  harsh.  Dr.  Abbott,  who  is  less  severe 
than  some  others,  has  a  faint  impression  that  the  construction 
is  found  in  a  number  of  the  standard  authors. 

Professor  George  P.  Krapp  -  is  much  more  liberal  than  the 
authorities  thus  far  quoted.  Though  advising  unskilled  writers 
to  follow  the  rules  as  laid  down  in  the  textbooks  we  have 
quoted,  he  says  that  the  "dangling  participle"  is  often  justi- 
fied, both  in  speech  and  in  literary  language,  by  "the  logic  of 
the  general  situation."  He  shows  this  by  sentences  from 
Carlyle  and  Stevenson.  Professor  Krapp  insists,  however,  that 
clearness  must  be  maintained ;  still  he  does  not  demand  that 
every  participle  shall  have  a  subject  fully  expressed,  but 
simply  one  that  can  be  easily  inferred  by  the  reader.  Nor 
does  he  call  the  participle  "dangerous"  and  say  it  "must  be 
watched,"  as  if  the  participle  w'ere  an  atrocious  criminal  to  be 
dragged  to  jail  by  a  bevy  of  policemen. 

Possibly  some  reader  of  this  volume,  knowing  how  liberal 
and  tolerant  Professor  Krapp  is  in  regard  to  many  disputed 
points  in  English,  may  not  be  willing  to  accept  his  view  of 
this  matter.  Let  us  see,  then,  what  a  disinterested  foreigner 
says  about  it ;  how  it  strikes  a  great  German  grammarian  who 
is  of  course  free  from  all  prejudices  pro  and  con  that  we  who 
are  born  to  the  English  language  almost  inherit  from  our 
parents,  certainly  catch  from  half-taught  insti-uctors  and  from 

1  How  to  Purse,  p.  238. 
-  Modern  English,  p.  306. 


168  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

books  written  by  sciolists  and  purists.  We  refer  to  Matzner,^ 
the  eminent  grammarian.  Of  this  participle  he  says:  ''Al- 
though the  participle  in  general,  where  it  stands  absolutely, 
is  not  without  a  substantive  or  pronoun  on  which  it  has  to 
lean,  participles  standing  alone  also  occur,  which  lean  in  part 
mediately  upon  a  noun,  or  leave  to  be  supplied  a  notion 
already  named ;  but,  in  part,  completely  isolated,  must  leave  a 
subject  to  be  conjectured."  This  scholar,  then,  recognizes  the 
participle  standing  alone.  He  finds  it  all  through  the  litera- 
ture. He  does  not  call  it  "inadmissible",  "careless",  "hasty," 
but  treats  it  as  a  regular  phenomenon  of  the  language.  He 
then  shows  the  various  phases  under  which  this  participle 
makes  its  appearance:  (1)  the  logical  subject  of  the  parti- 
ciple may  have  to  be  gathered  from  a  possessive  pronoun ;  (2) 
or  from  some  noun  or  pronoun  gone  before;  (3)  subjects 
to  the  participle  not  expressly  denoted  may,  often  in  the 
dialogue,  be  the  speakers  or  one  of  them.  Here  is  a  distinct 
recognition,  by  a  great  German  scholar,  of  a  participle  which 
many  of  our  own  scholars  have  called  by  all  kinds  of  names 
implying  that  it  is  a  monstrosity  in  our  literature,  while  they 
quote  sentences  from  the  most  eminent  authors  to  show  how 
hasty  these  writers  are  and  how  many  of  them  perpetrate 
inadmissible  sentences.  Matzner  quotes  some  of  the  same  and 
others  to  show  what  good  authority  he  has  for  his  treatment 
of  the  locution.  Among  the  authorities  he  cites  are  Mande- 
ville,  the  Coventry  Mysteries,  Shakespeare,  Sheridan  Knowles, 
Butler,  Scott,  Cooper,  Irving,  and  Sir  Frederick  Madden,  a 
distinguished  list  of  murderers  of  the  King's  English. 

But  possibly  some  one  will  say  that  Krapp  and  Matzner  are 
specialists  in  language ;  therefore  not  to  be  trusted  implicitly. 
Let  us  turn,  then,  to  a  man  who  is  not  a  specialist  in  the 
same  sense  as  these,  but  a  cultivated  scholar  who  has  shown 
a  profound  knowledge  of  some  periods  of  English  literature, 
and  who  is  thoroughly  qualified  to  know  good  English  when 

^English  Grammar,  (Grpcp's  translation)  III,  pp.  72,  73. 


MISBELATED  PAFTICIPLE   (OE  GEEUND)  169 

he  sees  it.  Professor  F.  E.  Schelling  in  his  edition  of  the 
Merchant  of  Venice'^  comments  upon  one  of  these  misrelated 
participles  so  common  in  Shakespeare : 

How  could  he  see  to  Jo  them?  having  made  one 
Methinks  it  should  have  power  to  steal  both  his 
And  leave  itself  unfurnish'd.     (III.  ii.  124-126.) 

Professor  Schelling  says,  ' '  We  expect  a  verb  agreeing  with 
this  clause  to  follow ;  but  in  the  hurry  of  Bassanio's  rapturous 
speech  the  construction  is  not  carried  out.  Such  examples 
of  collocpiial  phraseology  in  Shakespeare,  far  from  being 
blemishes,  add  greatly  to  the  dramatic  quality  of  his  dia- 
logue. ' '  Test  Bassanio  s  sentence  by  Professor  Krapp  's  canon. 
Is  clearness  maintained  ?  Does  the  merest  schoolboy  have  the 
least  difficulty  in  understanding  that  the  word  "he"  in  line 
124  is  the  subject  of  this  "dangling",  "dislocated"  participle? 
Professor  Schelling  calls  this  phrase  "colloquial  phraseology," 
but  the  table  below  shows  that  this  construction  is  found  in 
standard  prose  from  Latimer  to  the  best  essayists,  rhetorical 
scholars,  and  poets  of  the  present. 

The  following  list  of  passages  in  which  this  participle  is 
used  is  by  no  means  exhaustive : 

Latimer    1       Johnson    2 

Shakespeare     13       Boswell 2 

Bacon    1       Coleridge    2 

Thomas  Fuller    1       Burke    2 

Wycherley    1       Gibbon    1 

Defoe    4       Hazlitt    1 

Pope   2      Lamb    6 

Addison    1       Southey    1 

Steele    2       Freneau    1 

Cotton  Matlier    1       Franklin     1 

Swift    1       Irving 2 

Berkeley     1       Scott 7 

Dr.  H.  Blair .'{       Christopher  North    1 

Fielding   2       Jane  Austen   6 

Goldsmith     5       Mrs.  Gaskell   1 

ip.  170. 


170  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Hallam    2  Bulwer    7 

Poe    18  Cooper    4 

Merivale     1  Holmes   2 

Hawthorne     16  Tennyson    2 

Webster    1  George  William  Curtis .'{ 

Parkman    1  Herbert   Spencer    2 

Wendell  Phillips 1  Alexander   Bain    1 

Thackeray    13  William  Minto 1 

Dickens     H  Saintsbury 1 

De  Quincey   .'}  Browning 1 

Carlyle    2  Sir  John  Lubbock 1 

Calhoun 1  Mabie     5 

Ruskin    3  J.  F.  Genung 1 

George  Eliot   1  Cable    1 

Prescott    1  Stephen  Phillips 1 

Bayard  Taylor   1  C.  Geikie    1 

Charles    Darwin    1  Professor  O.  F.  Emerson ;; 

Francis  Palgrave   1  John   Fiske    1 

Froude    4  Stevenson 2 

Here  are  68  authorities  in  189  passages.  This  is  a  mere 
indication  of  what  might  be  gathered  from  the  literature. 

The  "misrelated  participle"  goes  back  to  the  Anglo-Saxon 
period.  It  is  found  both  in  prose  and  in  poetry.  It  comes  out 
clearly  in  Mandeville  and  in  Chaucer,  being  especially  noticed 
by  Professor  0.  F.  Emerson  in  his  Selections  from  Chancer:^ 
"This  is  the  misrelated  participle  occasionally  found  in  mod- 
ern English."  (As  to  the  word  "occasionally,"  see  the  list 
of  68  authors  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs.)  It  is  seen  in  the 
Mystery  Plays,  Latimer,  Shakespeare,  and  in  every  decade 
down  to  the  present  day.  It  is  used  in  polite  society  and  by 
cultivated  speakers  without  number.  Certainly  it  may  be 
called  the  "misapprehended,"  the  "persecuted,"  participle. 

The  writer  is  not  arguing  for  the  use  of  this  construction. 
As  a  matter  of  mere  theory,  he  thinks  the  rhetorics  and  the 
grammars  are  right  in  their  criticism.  It  is  no  doubt  bet- 
ter that  a  participle  or  any  other  verbal  form  should  have 

*  p.  li,  Introduction. 


MISEELATED  PAETICIPLE   (OF  GEEUND)  171 

its  noun  or  pronoun  within  immediate  reach ;  but  our  language 
has  never  made  the  cast-iron  rule  that  it  must  be  so.  The 
only  test  is  clearness ;  is  the  thought  perspicuous  ?  If  so,  the 
demands  of  language,  certainly  of  English,  have  been  fully 
met,  and  the  hard-and-fast  rules  quoted  above  are  not  war- 
ranted either  by  the  necessities  of  language  or  by  the  usage  of 
polite  speakers  and  the  mass  of  great  authors. 

The  writers  on  style  not  infrequently  contend  for  strict 
precision  to  the  extent  of  pedantry;  the  great  authors  are 
satisfied  if  they  express  themselves  Avith  general  perspicuity. 

To  show  how  this  participle  is  used  in  the  literature,  the  fol- 
lowing additional  quotations  are  offered  :  Thomas  Fuller  (The 
Holy  State)  says,  "Drake  continued  his  course  for  Porto 
Rico ;  and,  •  riding  within  the  road,  a  shot  from  the  Castle 
entered  the  steerage  of  the  ship,"  etc.  Dean  Swift  (Gulliver's 
Travels)  says,  "The  pupils,  at  his  command,  took  each  of 
them  hold  of  an  iron  handle,  whereof  there  were  forty  fixt 
i^ound  tlie  edges  of  the  frame,  and  giving  them  a  sudden  turn, 
the  whole  disposition  of  the  words  was  entirely  changed." 
Ruskin  (Sesame  and  Lilies)  says,  '' keeping  the  figure  a 
little  longer,  even  at  cost  of  tiresomeness,  for  it  is  a  thor- 
oughly useful  one,  the  metal  yen  are  in  search  of  being  the 
author's  mind  or  meaning,  his  words  are  as  the  rock  which 
you  have  to  crush  and  smelt  in  order  to  get  at  it."  Haw- 
thorne in  The  Custom  House  says,  ''Bred  up  from  boyhood 
in  the  Custom  House,  it  was  his  proper  field  of  activity"; 
"In  accomplishing  the  main  purpose,  it  has  appeared  allow- 
able, by  a  few  extra  touches,"  etc.  Burke  in  his  speech  on 
Conciliation  says,  "comparing  it  wuth  the  ordinary  circum- 
stances of  liuman  nature,  it  was  a  happy  and  a  liberal  condi- 
tion."   Gibbon  {Memoirs  of  Mif  Life,  etc.)  says,  "Dr. 

well  remembered  that  he  liad  a  salary  to  receive,  and  only 
forgot  that  he  had  a  duty  to  perform.  Instead  of  guiding  the 
studies,  and  watching  over  the  behavior  of  his  disciple.  I  was 
never.summoned  to  attend  even  the  ceremony  of  a  lecture." 


172  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

LXXIX 

MUTUAL  FRIEND 

No  locution  in  the  language  has  caused  more  discussion  than 
mutual  friend.  Dean  Alford  ^  opposed  it  violently.  He  called 
it  "sheer  nonsense";  said  that  it  should  be  "common  friend." 
Maeaulay  had  already  called  it  "a  vulgarism."  Quackenbos^ 
calls  it  "grossly  erroneous."  A.  S,  HilP  says,  "it  has  never 
been  in  good  use,  and  it  is  not  likely  to  be."  Genung*  and 
Hart  condemn  it  in  their  textbooks. 

Some  high  authorities  avoid  it  while  admitting  that  it  has 
some  standing  in  the  language.  For  instance,  Nesfield  ^  says, 
"anomalous,  but  sanctioned  by  usage."  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictionary  says  that  it  is  incorrect  but  sanctioned  by  high 
authority.  Webster,  while  admitting  that  mutual  for  "com- 
mon" has  had  high  authority,  thinks  that  "a  tendency  toward 
careful  discrimination  has  set  in."  The  Century  Dictionary 
says  that  mutual  friend"  is  not  infrequently  used  by  writers 
of  high  repute,  but  does  not  endorse  it.  The  Century  quotes 
Blacklock  (1786),  Dickens,  and  Walter  Scott  as  using  it.  The 
New  English  Dictionary  says,  "Commonly  censured  as  incor- 
rect, but  still  often  used.  .  .  .  Mutual  is  the  only  adjective 
correctly  expressing  the  intended  meaning."  This  diction- 
ary quotes  passages  from  the  writings  of  Lady  Mary  Wortley 
Montagu,  Burke,  Scott,  George  Eliot,  and  L.  Oliphant.  Fitz- 
edward  Hall**  cites  passages  from  Burke,  Sterne,  Colraan, 
Dickens,  and  a  few  obscure  authors.  Lounsbury  ^  in  1908 
came  to  the  rescue  of  this  much  abused  phrase,  and  says  that 

^The  Queen's  English,  1866,  pp.  22",  224. 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  180G,  p.  240. 

^  Bef/inninns  of  Rhetoric,  and  Composilion .  p.   278. 

*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  321. 

^English  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  20,5. 

^Modern  English,  p.  241. 

''The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  Ill,  144. 


MUTUAL  FRIEND  173 

it  was  used  1)y  l^iirkr,  Jane  Austen,  Scott,  Disi-aeli,   Byron, 
and  Brownin^^.     Tlie  writer  has  seen  it  in  the  following : 

Dickens    ?•       Bulvvcr    1 

Thackeray    3       T.  N.  T^age 1 

In  the  lists  above  we  have  fourteen  authors  of  high  repute, 
besides  Blackloek,  a  minor  writer.  This  is  not  a  very  strong 
array  of  statistics ;  it  helps  to  show  that  a  good  many  authors 
are  influenced  by  attacks  made  upon  a  locution  by  some 
and  by  lukewarm  connnendation  from  others. 

Some  of  the  best  authors  have  adopted  "common  friend" 
either  wholly  or  partially.  Among  these  are  Burke,  Johnson, 
Boswell,  Macaulay,  John  Morley,  and  Mrs.  Humphry  "Ward. 
But  "common  friend"  will  hardly  become  popular.  We  do 
not  object  to  saying  "the  common  defense",  "our  common 
interests",  "a  common  treasury";  but,  in  the  phrase  "com- 
mon friend,"  the  adjective  has  an  unpleasant  suggestion,  has 
a  slight  possibility  of  being  misapprehended. 

For  over  three  centuries  mutual  has  been  coming  into  the 
territory  of  "common."  In  1555  Cavendish  uses  "mutual 
brother"  in  his  Life  of  Wolsey,  and  Oliphant  regards  this  as 
the  earliest  progenitor  of  mutual  friend.  Shakespeare  has 
"mutual  act  of  all  our  souls",  "mutual  load",  "mutual  cry", 
"mutual  stand."  Bentley  has  "mutual  weeping";  Congreve, 
"mutual  ruin"  for  "common  ruin";  Pope,  "mutual  hate" 
(of  a  third  person),  "mutual  wants";  Swift,  "mutual  clogs"; 
Jefferson,  "mutual  guide";  Washington,  "mutual  cares, 
labors,  and  dangers";  Bulwer,  "mutual  sojourn",  "mutual 
enthusiasm  ",  "  mutual  safety ' ' ;  Mrs.  Gaskell, ' '  nuitual  wa  nt "  ; 
Newman,  "mutual  defence";  Bayard  Taylor,  "mutual  fate" 
and  "mutual  burden";  Ilawtliome,  "mutual  crime";  Ros- 
setti,  "mutual  dreams";  Dickens,  "mutual  consent"  (of  a 
large  party)  ;  Thackeray,  "mutual  acquaintance"  and  "mu- 
tual friend";  Hallam,  "mutual  defence";  Tennyson,  "mu- 
tual mother.  '     A  famous  and   familiar  old  hymn,  also,  has 


174  STVmES  IN  USAGE 

helped  no  little  in  this  matter.  In  tliat  liyniii,  "Blest  l)e  tlie  tie 
tliat  binds,"  we  sing  of  "rnntual  woes"  and  "mutnal  bur- 
dens." This  hymn  was  composed  in  1772.  Fourteen  years 
later,  Blacklock  wrote  abont  a  mutual  fn'riid.  So  both  the 
author  of  the  hymn  and  Blacklock  had  precedent  for  these 
phrases  in  those  quoted  above  from  Shakespeare,  Cavendish, 
Pope,  and  others  in  a  foregoing  paragraj^li. 

Dickens,  then,  when  he  used  mutual  friend,  had  the  au- 
thority of  Lady  Mary  Wortle}'  Montagu,  Burke,  Sterne,  Col- 
man,  Scott,  Byron,  and  Jane  Austen,  besides  other  less  emi- 
nent authors.  We  may  infer,  also,  that  mutual  friend  had  a 
wide  vogMc  in  polite  collocpdal  English  in  England,  as  it  has 
certainly  had  in  many  pai-ts  of  America.  Is  it  credible  that 
Dickens  and  his  publishers  would  have  put  Our  Mutual 
Friend  on  the  press  if  the  name  had  been  objectionable  to 
the  educated  classes?  What  author  would  dare  to  name  a 
book — Our  Common  Friend F 

Why  all  this  opposition  to  "mutual  friend"?  What  is  the 
cause  of  the  antagonism?  Nothing  but  the  "devil  of  deriva- 
tion" spoken  of  by  Professor  Lounsbury  as  seizing  such  men 
as  Walter  Savage  Landor  and  Richard  Grant  White  of  earlier 
generations  and  some  excellent  men  of  our  own  day.  Be- 
cause Latin  mutuns  means  reciprocal,  the  idea  of  reciprocity 
must  always  be  present  in  the  English  word  "mutual";  a 
third  person  must  be  a  "common  friend,"  i.  e.,  common  to 
the  other  two ;  he  cannot  be  mutual  or  reciprocal.  Of  course 
this  is  logically  true;  but  language  does  not  stop  to  take 
counsel  of  logic,    . 

A  few  passages  from  the  literature  will  show  how  the 
reputable  authors  use  the  phrase  in  question.  Bulwer  in 
Pelham  says,  "I  said,  in  a  low  tone,  that  I  was  the  bearer 
of  a  letter  of  some  importance,  from  our  mutual  friend  Lord 
Dawton."  In  American  Notes,  Dickens  says,  "One  gentle- 
man on  board  had  a  letter  of  introduction  to  me  from  a 
mutual  friend  in  London."     Thackeray,  in  the  Roundabout 


MYSELF  FOE  1  .OE  ME,  ETC.  175 

Papers,  says,  "There  is  my  friend,  Baggs,  who  goes  about 
abusing  me,  and  of  course  our  dear  mutual  friends  tell  me"; 
"a  dead  gentleman  who  he  said  had  been  our  mutual  friend, 
and  on  the  strength  of  this  mutual  acquaintance  begged  me 
to  cash  his  check  for  five  pounds." 


LXXX 

MYSELF  FOE  I  OE  ME,  ETC. 

But  out  of  this  cntastrophe  to  most  of  our  skii-mishes,  and  to  all 
our  pitched  battles  except  one,  grew  a  standing  schism  l)etween  my 
brother  and  myself.     (De  Quincey.) 

The  use  of  myself  for  me  and  I;  himself  for  he  and  him, 
and  other  locutions  of  like  kind,  is  condemned  in  some  text- 
books and  by  many  teachers.  Genung  ^  says,  "Myself,  not  to 
be  used  for  unemphatic  I."  Quaekenbos-  says  it  is  ungram- 
matical  and  snobbish  in  the  extreme.  A.  S.  Hill,"  while  not 
so  severe  as  Quaekenbos,  expresses  a  preference  for  the  sim- 
ple personal  pronoun,  and  we  shall  not  quarrel  with  him. 
Kittredge  and  Farley*  condemn  these  forms  in  their  Gram- 
mar. 

The  sentence  from  De  Quincey  at  the  head  of  this  section 
represents  a  widely  prevalent  usage  in  polite  society  not  alto- 
gether "snobbish."  As  to  whether  the  authors  that  use 
these  fonns  are  all  snobs,  the  reader  can  judge  from  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Malory    1       Marlowe   1 

King  James  Bible 1        John  Webster   2 

Shakespeare     12       Milton     2 

1  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  321. 

-Practical  Rhetoric,  189G,  p.  240. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  114. 

*  Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  62. 


176  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Jeremy  Taylor    2       Do  Quinccy   18 

Bisho})  Burnet    1       Jane  Austen   2 

Addison    1       Hawthorne     3 

Matthew  Prior    1       Holmes     8 

Dr.   Johnson    2       xMrs.   Gaskell   1 

Boswell 1       Sir  Henry  Taylor 15 

Burke    1       Poe     80 

Jefferson    11       Bulwer     21 

Franklin     9       D.   G.  Mitchell 1 

Coleridge    3       Bryant    1 

Lamb    3       Browning     1 

Christopher  North    1       Thackeray    6 

Cowper     1       Tennyson   13 

Byron    1       W.  W.  Skeat 1 

Wordsworth     1       Stevenson     6 

Hallam   1 

As  far  as  the  writer  noticed,  Poe  is  the  worst  offender;  he 
is  the  most  ' '  snobbish ' '  of  our  writers. 

This  use  of  the  self-iovms  has  been  in  English  for  at  least 
six  hundred  years.  Matzner  cites  cases  from  the  best  litera- 
ture of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  writer  has  cited  37  of  the 
best  authors  from  Malory  to  William  Cullen  Bryant  and 
Ik  Marvel  in  America,  and  Stevenson  in  England.  On  the 
list  stand  Addison,  Dr.  Johnson,  and  William  Cullen  Biyant, 
three  of  the  autocrats  of  good  English.  Many  of  the  authors 
cited  use  the  "easy  language  of  cultivated  men  who  are  neither 
specialists  nor  pedants." 

This  locution  was  brought  from  England  in  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  by  cultivated  colonists  and  handed 
down  to  the  present  day  in  polite  society. 

Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "When  we  had  placed  him 
in  his  coach,  with  myself  at  his  left  hand,  the  captain  before 
him,"  etc.  Burke  (Conciliation)  says,  "No  man  was  indeed 
ever  better  disposed,  or  worse  qualified,  for  such  an  under- 
taking, than  myself."  De  Quincey  says,  "I  examined  him 
steadfastly  for  a  minute  or  more;  and  it  struck  me  that  he 
saw  neither  myself  nor  any  other  object  in  the  street."     (Lake 


NONE—SINGULAB  OE  PLUBAL.'  177 

Poets.)  Again,  ihidem:  "an  opinion  deliberately  expressed  to 
inyself  by  the  late  Sir  Ilnmphrey  Davy";  "Miss  Wordsworth 
and  myself  being  in  the  rear." 


LXXXI 

NONE— SINGULAR  OR  PLURAL! 

Is  none  singular  or  plural?  Tlu-  writer  lias  been  asked  this 
question  and  will  trj'  to  answer  it. 

The  English  grammarian  Nesfield  ^  says,  "was  originally 
used  only  as  a  Singular.  .  .  .  the  plural  sense  is  now  equally 
or  more  common."  Baskervill  and  Sewell  -  say,  "in  the  prose 
of  the  present  day  usually  plural."  On  this  side  they  quote 
Carlyle,  Professor  Dana,  Emerson,  Scott,  Thackeray,  and 
Thoreau.  On  the  side  of  the  singular,  they  quote  the  Bible, 
Lowell,  and  Scott.  ' '  The  singular, ' '  they  add, ' ' is  often  found 
in  the  Bible."  A  more  correct  statement  M'ould  be,  "In  the 
literature  of  the  present  day  more  frequently  plural.  .  .  . 
The  singular  is  far  more  common  in  the  Bible."  Lounsbury,^ 
in  his  most  recent  book  on  language,  defends  both  singular 
and  plural,  and  says  that  none  is  probably  used  most  in 
the  plural.  He  quotes  plural  cases  from  the  Bible,  Bacon, 
Shakespeare,  Milton,  and  Browning.  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionary says,  "The  plural  is  now  the  commoner  usage."  Car- 
penter* in  his  grammar  says,  "none,  originally  singular,  is 
now  treated  as  either  singular  or  plural."  A.  S.  Hill,"'  in 
his  school  Rhetoric,  says,  "None  may  be  either  singular  or 
plural."  Herrick  and  Damon,  in  their  Rhetoric,  say,  "Either 
singular  or  plural."  Kittredge''  says,  "either  singular  or 
plural." 

"^  English  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.  "D. 

"English  Grammar,  p.  ."JOl. 

■"  The  Staiulanl  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  lort-lOL'. 

*  Principles  of  English  Grammar,  p.  ISl. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  130. 

"  Kittrf>(lsf>  and  Parley's  Ad rnnecd  Englisli    G r<niniuir,  ]>.   04. 


178  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Loimsbury  says  that  the  construction  none  with  a  plural 
verb  has  been  held  up  to  censure  because  it  does  not  conform 
to  "the  crazy  canon  of  derivation"  already  referred  to  in 
these  pages  under  the  figure  of  demoniac  possession,  some  hav- 
ing discovered  that  none  is  singular  by  derivation. 

The  grammarians  and  the  rhetorical  scholars  agree  remark- 
ably in  regard  to  this  question.  We  have  seen  that  they  say, 
"Both  singular  and  plural."  The  point  to  be  settled  by  our 
study  is  the  ratio  between  the  singular  and  the  plural.  The 
writer  has  studied  this  word  carefully  in  the  literature  from 
Thomas  Malory  to  the  best  living  writers,  and  found  it  in 
about  100  authors  and  about  300  places. 

Taking  the  literature  as  a  whole,  both  prose  and  poetry,  for 
about  450  years,  the  ratio  is  approximately  sixteen  to  thirteen 
in  favor  of  the  plural.  Taking  the  literature  as  a  whole  down 
to  Paradise  Lost,  the  ratio  is  about  three  to  one  in  favor  of  the 
singular.  From  Milton  to  the  present,  the  ratio  is  about  seven 
to  four  in  favor  of  tlie  plural,  a  very  decided  change  in  favor 
of  the  plural. 

None  (from  A.S.,  ne  +  dn)  started  out  as  a  singular.  In 
the  King  James  Bible  it  is  still  overwhelmingly  singular.  In 
Shakespeare,  Bacon,  and  other  Elizabethan  authors  the  plural 
is  coming  into  use  along  with  the  singular.  With  Dr.  Samuel 
Johnson  in  the  next  century  the  ratio  is  nine  to  one  in  favor 
of  the  plural ;  and  the  two  cases  used  by  Boswell  ^  are  plural. 
From  the  time  of  Johnson  the  two  uses  have  run  parallel 
in  the  literature,  with  the  preponderance  on  the  side  of  the 
plural — seven  to  four,  as  said  already.  A  great  many  au- 
thorities use  both  singular  and  plural;  e.  g..  King  James 
Bible,  Shakespeare,  Bacon,  John  Webster,  Milton,  Addison, 
Swift,  Dryden,  Burke,  Kingsley,  Browning,  Tennyson,  Wil- 
liam Minto,  and  many  others.  A  few  authors  show  a  tend- 
ency to  use  the  plural  exclusively;  e.  g.,  Bulwer,  Professor 
G.  P.  Krapp,  and  Professor  A.  W.  Pollard — the  last  two  being 

1  In  his  TAfe  of  Johnston. 


NONE—SIXaULAE  OF  PLVBAL?  179 

specialists  in  English  philology  and  literature.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  few  are  especially  partial  to  the  singular;  e.  g., 
Browning  and  Macaulay.  Taking  the  literature  from  Malory 
to  the  present,  sixty-nine  authorities  use  the  singular ;  eighty- 
two,  the  plural.  Taking  the  literature  from  Paradise  Lost 
to  the  present,  fifty-six  use  the  singular;  seventy-five,  the 
plural.  (Many  are  counted  on  both  sides.)  From  every 
point  of  view,  then,  the  plural  is  considerably  stronger  than 
the  singular  in  tlie  literature.  In  polite  speech  it  seems  to  be 
almost  universal  witli  the  verb;  e.  g.,  "None  of  us  are  (or 
were)  able  to  say";  but  with  two  pronouns  together  the  sin- 
gular is  used  consistently;  e.  g.,  "None  of  us  hnows  when  his 
hour  is  coming. ' ' 

The  writer  has  seen  none  w^th  the  plural  verb  or  pronoun 
165  times  in  the  plural ;  133  times  in  the  singular. 

Let  us  glance  back  at  the  opening  paragraph.  Nesfield  is 
correct  in  his  first  statement,  but  needs  some  amendment  in 
his  second.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  should  say,  not  "usually 
plural,"  but  "plural  in  the  majority  of  cases."  Lounsbury 
should  drop  "probably"  out  of  his  statement.  Carpenter 
and  A.  S.  Hill  are  safe  in  their  statements,  but  rather  vague: 
there  is  safety  in  vagueness. 

None  is  sounds  rather  puristic.  It  is  likely  that  the  plural 
will  eventually  be  almost  universal  in  spoken  English  and 
increase  its  ratio  in  literature,  the  tendency  in  modern  English 
being  against  purism  and  in  favor  of  a  wide  latitude  and 
liberty,  practical  rather  than  puristic. 

Tennyson  {Sir  Galahad)  says, 

I  hear  a  voice,  but  none  are  there. 

In  Guinevere,  he  says, 

Xdiip  liioics  it,  aniT  my  tears  have  brouglit  me  good. 

7s  there  none 
"Will   tell   the   Kino-   I   love  him  tho '   so   late? 


180  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Emerson  {Emancipation  Address)  says,  "By  a  certain  fa- 
tality, none  but  the  vilest  arguments  ivere  brought  forward, 
whicli  corrupted  the  very  persons  who  used  them."  Motley 
{Dutch  Republic)  says,  "There  iccrc  none  to  hear  him,  except 
the  fugitive  whom  he  had  been  liunting";  and  "There  were 
none  who  could  hope  to  escape  the  gripe  of  the  new  tax- 
gatherers."  Poe  in  Israfcl  says,  "None  sing  so  wildly  well," 
etc.  Fronde  (Lives  of  the  Saints)  says,  "'Doubtless  the  'Lives 
of  the  Saints'  are  full  of  lies.  Are  there  none  in  the  Iliad? 
in  the  legends  of  Aeneas?"  De  Quincey  in  The  Female  Infidel 
says,  "it  might  be  difficult  for  the  officers  to  say.  as  none 
of  us  ivere  making  any  tumult." 

The  singular  occurs  in  many  of  the  best  authors.  Landor 
says, 

I  strove  with  none,  for  none  was  worth  my  strife. 

Arnold  {Memorial  Verses)  says. 

Sing  him  thy  best!   for  few  or  none 
Hears  thy  voice  right,  now  he  is  gone. 

Macaulay  {History  of  England)  says,  "The  Royalists  them- 
selves confessed  that,  in  every  department  of  honest  industry, 
the  discarded  warriors  prospered  beyond  other  men,  that  none 
ivas  charged  with  any  theft  or  robbery,  that  none  ivas  heard 
to  ask  an  alms,"  etc. 

In  most  passages  where  none  clearly  means  "no  one,"  the 
singular  verb  is  used  by  the  standard  authors. 


NOT  OXLY—Bl'T  (ALSO)  181 

LXXXTI 

NOT  ONLY— BUT   (ALSO) 

Tlie  same  word,  iudecJ,  was  Kot  only  trealetl  in  this  respect  differently 
by  different  autliors,  Int  differently  at  different  places  in  the  same  manu- 
script.     ( Lounsbury.J 

The  sentence  quoted  from  Professor  Loiinsbiiry  violates  a 
rule  of  the  school  rhetorics.  We  cauiiot  deny  that,  theoretic- 
ally, the  sentence  might  be  somewhat  better  in  form  if  not  only 
and  but  both  came  immediately  before  the  same  part  of 
speech.  To  do  this  in  the  case  above  would  require  a  complete 
recasting  of  the  sentence.  Is  the  game  worth  the  candle? 
Can  any  intelligent  person  have  the  least  difficulty  in  under- 
standing the  meaning  of  the  author  ? 

Take  this  quotation  from  Coleridge's  Biographla  Littraria: 
"Not  only  in  the  verses  of  those  who  have  professed  their 
admiration  of  his  genius,  hut  even  of  those  who  have  distin- 
guished themselves  by  hostility  to  his  theory,"  etc.  Is  there 
any  trouble  in  understanding  the  author 's  meaning  ?  Coleridge 
commits  this  '"error"  pretty  frequently. 

The  literature  is  filled  with  sentences  like  the  two  quoted 
from  Coleridge  and  Lounsbury.  The  writer  has  collected  a 
few  out  of  the  multitude  that  stared  at  him  from  famous 
pages : 

Bacon    2  Burnet    2 

King  James  Bible 1  Hazlitt     5 

Sidney    1  Coleridge    8 

Izaak  Walton    2  De  Quincoy   2 

Ben  Jonson   1  I^anib    1 

Sir   Thomas   Browne 3  Thomas  Wartou    2 

Jeremy  Taylor    G  Dr.  H.  Blair   3 

Dr.   Johnson    2  Burke,     3 

Goldsmith     2  Franklin     1 

Boswell     5  Scott 1 

Addison    5  Sir  William  llamiltou 1 


182  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Poe    6  Minto    1 

Preseott    2  Milman     1 

Motley    1  Stevenson     1 

Maeaulay   G  Churton  Collins 1 

J.   F.   D.   Maurice 1  E.  C.  Stedman 1 

B.    Disraeli    '. 2  Sir  John  Lubbock   1 

Dickens    1  George  William  Curtis   1 

Hallam     3  H.  W.  Mabie    10 

Cooper    '. 2  Louusbury   G 

Carlyle    1  James  Bryce  1 

Thackeray    2  Chesterton    3 

Bagehot    ; . .  .  1  C.  Geikie   1 

Matthew   Arnold    7  Sir  Henry  Taylor   1 

Lowell    1  John  Earle    1 

Holmes   1  John  Fiske    2 

Stanley   1  Huxley    6 

Here  are  54  authorities,  about  125  "faulty"  sentences. 
How  can  a  teacher  of  rhetoric  condemn  sentences  involving 
this  locution  when  he  finds  them  all  through  the  literature? 
The  rules  in  the  rhetorics  set  forth  a  pretty  theory.  It  may 
be  all  right  to  train  the  young  minds  to  shoot  up  like  straight, 
erect  plants;  but  after  all  we  may  make  them  puristic  and 
pedantic.  What  will  they  say  when  they  see  these  "faulty" 
sentences  on  every  page  of  our  best  literature  ?  They  may  rise 
up  and  damn  us  as  purists  and  pedants. 

A  few  more  sentences  from  standard  authors  will  show  how 
these  writers  violate  the  rule  that  not  only — hut  (also)  must 
always  stand  before  the  same  part  of  speech.  De  Quincey 
(Lake  Pods)  says,  "  It  is  not  only  the  very  smallest  chapel  by  all 
degrees  in  England,  hut  is  so  mere  a  toy  in  outward  appear- 
ance, that,"  etc. ;  "he  not  only  received  letters  addressed  to 
him  under  this  assumed  name  .  .  .  hut  he  himself  continually 
franked  letters  by  that  name";  "Now,  this  being  a  capital 
offence,  being  not  only  a  forgery  hut  sure  to  be  prosecuted, 
nobody  presumed  to  question  his  pretences  any  longer."  Dean 
Stanley  {Menwrials  of  Canterhury)  says,  "it  is  not  only  a 
sign  of  the  violent  convulsion  through  which  the  Eeformation 


NOW  AS  A  CONJUNCTION  183 

was  effected,  but  it  is  a  sign  also,"  etc.  Lord  Macaulay  says, 
"At  fifteen  he  was  not  only  fit  for  the  university,  hut  carried 
thither  a  classical  taste  and  a  stock  of  learning  which  would 
have  done  honor  to  a  Master  of  Arts";  "The  Lord  Lieuten- 
ant was  itot  onhj  licentious  and  corrupt,  hut  was  distinguished 
from  otlier  libertines  and  jobbers  by  a  callous  impudence," 
etc.  {Essay  on  Addison.)  In  the  Spectator,  number  452, 
Addison  says,  "These  several  dishes  of  news  are  so  very 
agreeable  to  the  palate  of  my  countrymen,  that  they  are 
not  only  pleased  with  them  when  they  are  served  up  hot, 
hut  when  they  they  are  again  set  cold  before  them,"  etc. 
Burke  (Conciliation)  says,  "I  walk  down  upon  the  open  plain, 
and  undertake  to  show  that  they  {i.e.,  the  Americans)  were 
not  only  quiet,  but  showed  many  unequivocal  marks  of 
acknowledgment  and  gratitude." 


LXXXIII 

NOW  AS  A  CONJUNCTION 

Only  a  few  of  our  best  grammars  recognize  now  as  a  con- 
junction. Abbott  ^  recognizes  it,  saying  that  it  started  out  as 
"now  that,"  the  "that"  falling  out.  Baskervill  and  Sewell- 
recognize  it,  quoting  a  sentence  from  H.  H.  Jackson.  The 
Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  citing  an  example  from 
Piers  Plowman  and  one  from  Shakespeare.  Webster  recog- 
nizes it,  giving  an  example  from  Shakespeare.  The  New  Eng- 
lish Dictionary  recognizes  it,  citing  passages  from  Marlowe, 
Nash,  Shakespeare,  and  Defoe. 

As  the  authorities  cited  by  these  dictionaries  are  rather  old, 
let  us  quote  from  authors  of  a  much  more  modern  period. 
Mrs.  Gaskell  in  Crauford  says,  "Lady  Glenmire,  noiv  we  had 

1  How  to  Parse,  p.  254. 

'  English  Grammar,  pp.  10.5,  196. 


184  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

time  to  look  at  her,  proved  to  be  a  bright  little  woman  of 
middle  age.  ..."     Matthew  Arnold  writes, 

I  knew  it  when  my  life  was  young; 
I  feel  it  still  7iow  youth  is  o'er. 

The  author  has  recorded  the  following  cases: 

Interlude  of  Thersytes 1  Cowper     

Massingcr     1  Horace  Waljiole   

Bacon    1  Franklin     

Shakespeare     5  Shelley     

Ben  Jonson t  Mrs.    Gaskell 

Joseph  Hall 1  Lamb    

Milton     2  George  Eliot 14 

Baxter    1  Matthew  Arnold 2 

Temple     1  Keble    1 

Congreve    1  Tennyson     2 

Now  (A.S.  nil)  is  one  of  the  oldest  conjunctions  in  the 
language.  It  occurs  several  times  in  Beowulf,  and  frequently 
elsewhere  in  Anglo-Saxon  literature.  It  occurs  in  Piers  Ploiv- 
man,  as  cited  by  the  Century  Dictionary  and  verified  by  the 
author.  It  comes  out  clearly  in  the  Elizabethan  literature  and 
maintains  itself  to  the  most  modern  period.  In  brief,  it  has 
never  been  obsolete  in  English  literature,  as  our  table  shows. 

The  ''that"  Avas  not  found  in  Anglo-Saxon;  "now  (nu)  I 
have,  come  from  afar,"  says  Beowulf — where  now  =  since. 

As  shown  in  another  section,  "directly",  "immediately," 
and  even  "instantly"  are  used  to  some  extent  as  conjunctions 
in  England,  and  "once"  is  tending  in  the  same  direction. 
(See  pp.  71ff.,  above.) 

As  some  readers  may  not  have  access  to  the  dictionaries 
referred  to  in  a  foregoing  paragraph,  let  us  quote  from  a  few 
authors  of  earlier  modern  literature.    Milton  in  Lycidas  says, 

But,  oh!  the  heavy  change,  vow  thou  art  gone. 

Lord  Bacon  says,   "When  the  World  was  young,  it  begate 
more  Children;  But  now  it  is  old,  it  begets  fewer."     Lamb 


OF  A  MORNING,  ETC.  185 

{The  Last  Essays  of  Elia)  says,  "holidays,  and  all  other  fun, 
are  gone  now  we  are  rich."  Joseph  Hall  says,  "And  now 
the  evening  is  come,  no  tradesman  doth  more  carefully  take  in 
his  wares,  clear  his  shopboard,  and  shut  his  window,  than  I 
w^ould  shut  up  my  thoughts,  and  clear  my  mind."  George 
Eliot  (Adam  Bcde)  says,  "It  was  right  that  things  should  look 
strange  and  disordered  and  wretched,  now  the  old  man  had 
come  to  his  end  in  that  sad  way. ' ' 

The  table  shows  that  George  Eliot  brought  this  conjunc- 
tion down  to  our  own  dav  in  full  force. 


LXXXIV 
OF  A  MORNING,  FTC. 

The  time-phrases  uf  a  morning,  of  an  evening,  etc.,  found 
in  the  "old  Virginia  dialect,"  occur  in  recent  literature  to  a 
noticeable  extent.  Professor  Earle  ^  says,  ' ' Instead  of  evenings 
and  mornings"  used,  as  he  says,  in  homely  and  familiar  speech, 
"we  may  say  of  an  evening,  of  a  morning."  To  show  that 
these  locutions  are  allowable  in  literary  English,  Earle  quotes 
from  A.  J.  W.  Hare.  Of  a  Saturday  night,  he  quotes  from 
Walter  Scott.     Of  the  afternoon  occurs  in  Harnlet.- 

Of  an  evening,  etc.,  can  be  seen  in  the  following  authors : 

Pepys    1  George  Eliot   3 

Lamb    3  Browning   4 

Irving     1  D.   G.  Mitchell 2 

Biilwer    1  Holmes - 

Thomas  Hughes   1  Thomas  Nelson  Page   1 

Thackeray    11  Price   Collier 1 

E.  C.  Stedman 1  Aldrit-h    2 


These  phrases  can  be  heard  to  a  considerable  extent  among 
the  best  people  of  the  old  states,  though  they  are  somewhat 
antiquated. 


^  PhilolofJU  of  the  ErujlisJi   Tomjur,  18S7,  p.  427. 
-"My  custom  always  uf  tlic  iifti  ruouu." 


186  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Thackeray,  who  is  especially  partial  to  these  phrases,  uses 
also  of  later  days,  of  a  Sunday,  of  late  nights.  George  Eliot 
uses  of  late  years,  of  a  Sunday,  of  a  morning.  Pepys  says, 
of  a  Sunday  night.    They  all  belong  together. 

Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott  in  his  IIoiv  to  Parse  ^  says,  "Only  in  ver- 
nacular English  is  of  now  used  for  during  .  .  .  but  this  was 
once  more  common."  That  he  was  mistaken  in  his  first  state- 
ment can  be  seen  clearly  from  the  statement  of  Professor  John 
Earle  as  to  recent  usage  in  England  and  from  the  number  of 
very  modern  authors  in  the  table. 

The  author  is  not  arguing  for  the  revival  of  these  old 
phrases,  but  showing  that  they  still  survive  in  standard  litera- 
ture.    Of  late  years,  of  a  sudden,  of  old — 

God  of  our  fathers,  known  of  old — - 

and  a  few  others  are  still  seen  in  the  best  authors  and  heard 
from  the  best  speakers  very  often ;  the  others  are  less  common. 
In  "popular  talk,"  as  Kellner  would  say,  we  hear  all  these 
old  phrases  frequently.  Certainly  they  should  not  be  called 
illiterate  when  found  in  the  works  of  so  many  excellent 
authors  and  among  many  old  families  in  polite  society. 

E.  C.  Stedman  (Nature  and  Elements  of  Poetry)  says,  "She 
sees  the  moon  where  it  should  be  of  on  evening  in  its  third 
quarter, — to  wit,  rising  in  the  east."     Donald   G.  Mitchell 

(Reveries)  says,  "if  I  cannot  open  the  window  readily  of  a 
morning,  to  breathe  the  fresh  air,  I  knock  out  a  pane  or  two 
of  glass  with  my  boot";  "I  happened  only  a  little  while  ago 
to  drop  into  the  college   chapel  of  a  Sunday."     Browning 

(The  Ring  and  the  Book)  says, 

As  to  stand   gazing  by  the  hour   on  high, 
Of  May-eves,  -while  she  sat  and  let  him  smile. 

Again : 

She  brought  a  neighbor's  child  of  my  own  age 
To  play  with  me  of  rainy  afternoons. 

ip.  219. 


ONLY  187 

In  Mr.  Sludge,  the  Medium,  he  says, 

Because  one  brindled  heifer,  late  in  March, 
Stiffened  her  tail  of  evenings. 

When  the  stag  had  to  break  with  his  foot,  of  a  morning, 

A  drinking-hole  out  of  the  fresh,  tender  ice 

That  covered  the  pond.     {The  Flight  of  the  Duc]ics!<.) 

The  foregoing  citations  corroborate  Earle's  statement  made 
about  1870  and  show  that  the  old-fashioned  Americans  of  that 
day  were  using  some  of  the  same  old  phrases  current  in  the 
polite  circles  of  England. 

These  phrases  in  of  are  the  modern  English  equivalent  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  genitive  of  time.  This  survives  in  the  dia- 
lectical ''evenings"  and  "mornings."  A  parallel  case  is  the 
German  adverb  niorgcns  =  in  the  morning. 


LXXXV 
ONLY 

The  position  of  only  has  long  been  a  burning  question  in 
English.  Not  to  go  farther  back  than  fifty  years.  Dean 
Alford  ^  said  in  186-i  that  the  pedants  were  very  strict  but  the 
language  very  liberal.  "The  adverb  only,"  says  he,  "in  many 
sentences  where  strictly  speaking  it  ought  to  follow  its  verb 
and  to  limit  the  objects  of  tiie  verb,  is  in  good  English  placed 
before  the  verb."  'I  only  saw  a  man,'  he  says,  is  our  ordinary 
colloquial  English ;  but  the  pedant  would  compel  us  to  say 
'I  saw  only  a  man.'  The  question  is  the  same  in  our  day: 
rhetorical  seholai's  and  grammarians  make  their  rule  ;  the  great 
authors,  the  great  majority  of  them,  are  utterly  oblivious  of 
the  rule  and  care  nothing  for  it. 

A  recent  Rhetoric  by  five  Yale  instructors  -  says,  ' '  Of  single 

1  The  Queen's  English,  1S6G,  pp.  141-144. 

-  Canby  and  four  others.  This  book  is  referred  to  several  times  in  the 
present  volume. 


188  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

words  it  is  perliaps  onlif  that  is  oftenest  misplaced.  It  should, 
when  possible,  be  placed  immediately  before  the  word  with 
which  it  is  connected."  This  same  rule  has  been  in  Genung's 
textbooks  for  twenty-five  years.  The  first  statement  is  correct 
if  the  authors  of  schoolbooks  are  to  dictate  the  law  to  the 
authors. 

A.  S.  Hill  ^  says,  "The  word  only  is  especially  troublesome." 
This  is  certainly  true  if  absolute  puristic  precision  is  de- 
manded ;  the  standard  authors  are  troublesome  to  the  textbook- 
makers.  Or,  as  Lovinsbury  would  say,  the  Supreme  Court  is 
continually  interfering  with  the  justices  of  the  peace.  Hill, 
in  one  place,  is  diametrically  opposed  to  Genung  and  the  Yale 
Rhetoric ;  in  another  place,  he  makes  the  high  school  student 
correct  a  block  of  sentences  that  might  have  come  from  the 
works  of  almost  any  standard  author. 

Carpenter-  says,  "Only  usually  immediately  precedes  or 
follows  the  word  or  group  of  words  which  it  limits. ' '  Here  is 
confusion  worse  confounded.  Nesfield,^  the  English  gram- 
marian, after  saying  that  the  position  of  only  determines  the 
meaning  of  a  sentence,  makes  up  a  sentence,  and  by  moving 
only  around  tries  to  show  how  many  things  the  sentence 
means.  This  is  mere  pedantry  if  literature  is  to  be  our  guide 
in  such  matters:  we  all  know  that  our  language  is  not  always 
absolutely  precise,  general  clearness  or  perspicuity  being  often 
the  only  aim  of  the  great  masters. 

Baskervill  and  Sewell'*  are  less  rigid  than  several  of  the 
other  writers  quoted.  They  show  that  only  is  used  with  con- 
siderable latitude  by  such  authorities  as  Palgrave,  Thackeray, 
Wendell  Phillips,  N.  P.  Willis,  Swift,  Ruskin,  and  Emerson. 

Bain  "^  is  pretty  rigid.  He  not  only  corrects  sentences  that 
might  be  duplicated  in  numberless  standard  authors  but  pro- 

^  Bc<jinnin!;s  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  201. 

-Principles  of  Emjlish  Grammar,  p.  193. 

" /;«f/?is7(  Grammar  Past  and  Prrsoit,  pp.  174,  IT.'). 

^  Enfjlish  Grammar,  p.  "2^>. 

^-  C'ompof^ition  Grammar,  pp.  P.IOr.in. 


ONLY  189 

poses  in  some  cases  to  rewrite  the  sentence  and  leave  out  only. 
"He  that  fights  custom  with  grammar  is  a  fool,"  says 
Montaigne. 

All  this  corroborates  Lounsbury's  statement  that  for  many 
years  the  English  language  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
"schoolmasters,"  who  are  almost  threatening  to  rob  it  of  all 
its  spontaneity. 

The  best  and  most  helpful  statement  as  to  only  is  found  in 
Mother  Tongue  {III)  by  Gardiner,  Kittredge,  and  Arnold: 
"Good  usage  does  not  fix  absolutely  the  position  of  only  with 
respect  to  the  word  that  it  modifies.  There  is  but  one  safe 
rule:  'Shun  ambiguity.'  If  this  is  observed,  the  pupil  may 
feel  secure. ' '  Now  we  have  daylight :  "  I  thank  thee,  Jew,  for 
teaching  me  that  word."  If  we  accept  this  rule  very  few 
authors  of  standing  "misplace"  only.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  adopt  the  strict  rules  laid  down  by  several  of  tlie  books 
quoted,  most  of  the  standard  authors  "misplace"  only  fre- 
quently. As  a  partial  list  of  such  offenders  the  writer  has 
recorded  the  following  pretty  higli  authorities : 

Marlowo     1       Dr.  H.  Blair 4 

Sir    Thomas  Browne 5       ('liesterfiell    11 

Massinger     1       James  Madi^  on  1 

Jeremy   Taylor    9       Franklin     4 

Bishop  Burnet 8       Philip  Freneau   1 

Dryden   8       Burke    1 

Alexander  Pope   1       Gibbon    2 

Addison    4      Washington    1 

Steele    "       Jefferson     1 

Clarendon     1       Coleridge    6 

Swift    1       Lamb    3 

Dr.  Johnson 19       Hazlitt    13 

Boswell  2       Scott     17 

Fielding   1       Irving     6 

Hume    2       Hallam   29 

Thomas  Warton   2       Jane  Austen    4 

George  Campbell 1       De  Quincey    2 

Berkeley 1      Poe    24 

Goldsmith     6       Paley    1 


190 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Newman  1 

Matthew   Arnold    .''. 

Macaulay    /) 

Huxley    10 

George  William  Curtis   9 

J.  A.  Froudc Lil) 

Ruskin    9 

Herbert    Spencer 1 

Holmes  4 

Emerson     4 

Bret  Harte 2 

Thackeray     17 

Bulwer    2 

George  Eliot 11 

Cooper    ;? 

Prescott     2 

Sir  William  Hamilton 6 

Dickens     9 

Trench    , 7 

Bryant    2 

Darwin   1 

Buckle    ". . .  .  1 

Milman     4 

.Hawthorne     9 

Thoreau    1 

Motley    1 

Greeley   1 

Lowell     8 


Stanley     6 

Tennyson    1 

Whitney    12 

Browning   4 

Phillips   Brooks    2 

E.  L.  Godkin 1 

D.  G.  Mitchell 5 

Bagehot    5 

W.  D.  Howells 1 

Mrs.   H.   Ward 10 

Stevenson     7 

Justin    McCarthy 3 

Louusbury   4 

Price  Collier    2 

John  Morley   2 

Saintsbury     8 

Churton   Collins    7 

H.  W.   Mabie 1 

Chesterton    14 

C.  Geikie   1 

Professor  John  Earle 8 

George  P.  Marsh 1 

Freeman     1 

Henry  Drummond    11 

King?ley     1 

Stopford    Brooke 3 

Sir  Henry  Taylor    8 

John    Fiske    ■ 1 


We  have  named  104  authors  ''misplacing''"  only  in  over  400 
passages;  and  further  reading  would  increase  the  number 
indefinitely. 

Going  back  to  Dean  Alford,  p.  ST.  He  was  right  when  he 
said  that  "I  only  saw  a  man,"  not  "I  saw  only  a  man"  was 
the  normal  sentence  in  polite  society :  the  authors  cited  above 
use  exactly  that  type  of  sentence  mere  or  less  frequently.  The 
worst  offenders  are  Dr.  Johnson,  Hazlitt,  Seott,  Poe,  Thack- 
eray, George  Eliot,  Hallam,  Dickens,  Mrs.  H.  Ward,  Froude, 
G.  K.  Chesterton,  Henry  Drummond.  Some  others  are  almost 
as  wicked. 


ONLY  191 

There  are  several  forms  of  the  o^«i {/-sentence  in  English 
literature.  A  few  writers  like  Gibbon,  Macanlay,  and  De 
Quincey  are  generally  careful  to  put  only  before  its  principal, 
though,  as  our  list  shows,  they  sometimes  put  it  elsewhere. 
Then  there  is  the  type  spoken  of  by  Dean  Alf ord :  "I  only 
saw  a  man,"  instead  of  ''I  saw  only  a  man."  This  is  very 
common  in  Scott,  Bishop  Burnet,  Froude,  Chesterton,  Haw- 
thorne, Hazlitt,  Thackeray,  Addison,  Irving,  Lowell,  Churton 
Collins,  Dean  Stanley,  Burke,  George  Eliot,  Sir  William  Ham- 
ilton, Browning,  Dickens,  W.  D.  Whitney,  Stevenson,  Jane 
Austen,  Dr.  Johnson,  Mrs.  H.  Ward,  and  others.  These  use 
the  so-called  misplaced  only  very  freciuently.  Next,  there  is 
the  sentence  in  which  it  would  be  impossible,  without  the  most 
palpable  pedantry,  to  put  only  immediately  before  its  prin- 
cipal; e.g.,  "I  can  only  say  that  I  meant  no  offense  whatever." 
Here  only  strictly  modifies  the  clause  introduced  by  that;  but 
no  good  writers  ever  put  it  before  the  clause ;  and  yet  there  is 
no  am])iguity.  A  puristic  critic  might  say,  as  some  of  the 
verbalists  do  say  about  constructions  of  like  character,  that 
only  modifies  say,  and  that  tlie  sentence  means,  "I  can  only 
say,  not  feel" ;  but  this  would  be  verbal  hair-splitting  of  tlie 
most  absurd  kind.  Another  type  of  the  o/; /^-sentence  is  one 
in  which  only  cannot  be  regarded  as  modifying  any  one  word, 
phrase,  or  clause  but  rather  a  whole  group  of  words  to  be 
taken  as  a  unit;  e.g.,  "All  that  could  actually  take  place,  and 
all  that  is  only  possible  to  be  conceived,"  etc.  Here  only 
seems  to  modify  "possible  to  be  conceived."  Hazlitt  is  very 
partial  to  this  use  of  only.  Again:  "In  other  poets  there  is 
much  talk  that  only  fills  up  time  upon  the  stage."  In  this 
sentence  from  Samuel  Johnson,  onhj  modifies  the  group 
"fills  up  time  upon  the  stage."  In  a  sense  this  only  imme- 
diately precedes  its  principal ;  but  its  principal  is,  gram- 
matically speaking,  neither  word,  phrase,  nor  clause. 

We  quote  a  few  typical  passages  from  the  literature. 

Dr.  Johnson  in  Easselas  says,  "in  a  short  time,   I  grew 


192  sTrniES  ix  fsage 

weary  of  looking  on  bai-ren  nniformity,  where  I  could  only 
see  again  what  I  had  already  seen";  in  the  BamMcr:  ''But 
pleasure  is  ouJij  received  when  we  believe  that  we  give  it  in 
return";   Dictionary:   "Every   other   author   may   aspire   to 
praise;  the  lexicograplier  can  only  ]u)])e  to  escape  reproach," 
etc.    Addison  (Spectator)  says, ' '  Tlie  mind  that  lies  fallow  but 
a  single  day,  sprouts  up  in  follies  that  are  only  to  be  killed  by 
a  constant  and  assiduous  culture";  "I  must  confess  that  I 
am  amazed  that  the  press  should  be  only  made  use  of  in  this 
way  by  news-writers,  and  the  zealots  of  parties";  "I  must 
observe    to    the    reader,    that    above    three    parts    of    those 
whom  I  reckon  among  the  litigious,  are  such  as  are  only  quar- 
relsome in  their  hearts,  and  have  no  opportunity  of  showing 
their  passions  at  the  bar."     Hawthorne  rarely  if  ever  keeps 
the  rule  laid  down  in  the  textbooks.     In  the  Marlle  Faun  he 
says,  *'It  is  a  peculiarity  of  this  picture,  that  its  profoundest 
expression  eludes  a  straightforward  glance,  and  can  only  be 
caught  by  side  glimpses,  or  when  the  eye  falls  casually  upon 
it";  "We  see  cheriibs  by  Kaphael,  whose  baby-innocence  could 
only  have  been   nursed  in   Paradise";   "all   the   care  that 
Cecilia   Metella's   husband   could   bestow,   to    secure   endless 
peace  for  her  beloved  relics,  had  only  sufficed  to  make  that 
handful  of  precious  ashes  the  nucleus  of  battles,  long  ages 
after  her  death."     Ruskin    (Sesame  and  Lilies)   says,  "an 
unreachable  schoolboy's  recklessness,  only  differing  from  the 
true  schoolboy's  in  its  incapacity  of  being  helped,  because  it 
acknowledges    no    master";    "The    perfect    loveliness    of    a 
woman's  countenance  can  only  consist  in  that  majestic  peace 
which  is  founded  in  memory  of  happy  and  useful  years"; 
"You  have  heard  it  said  .  .  .  that  flowers  o/; 7?/ flourish  rightly 
in  the  garden  of  some  one  who  loves  them. ' '    Newman  (Theory 
of  Belief)  says,  "Such  a  reason  can  only  satisfy  those  who 
regard  all  speculation  as  consisting  in  a  helpless  and  endless 
oscillation    between    antagonist    creeds."    Matthew    Arnold 
(Essays  in  Criticism)  says,  "all  the  books  and  reading  in  the 


ox  TO  193 

wo^ld   are   only   valuable   as   they  are   helps   to   this";   "by 

translation  I   can  only   reproduce  it   so  far  as  his  contents 
give  it.' 


LXXXVI 
ONTO 

Is  there  such  a  word  as  onto.^  The  writer  never  gave  it 
serious  thought  until  he  saw  it  recognized  in  Whitney's  Gram- 
mar. The  Standard  Dictionary  recognizes  it  but  says,  "Not 
accepted  as  correct  usage  by  many  authorities."  Worcester 
records  it  but  says,  "hardly  in  good  literary  use."  Webster 
says,  "usually  called  a  colloquialism;  but  it  may  be  regarded 
in  analogy  with  into."  The  Century  says,  "The  word  is 
regarded  by  purists  as  vulgar,  and  is  avoided  by  careful 
writers. ' '  The  Century  then  goes  on  to  quote  H.  Rider  Hag- 
gard, the  American  Journal  of  Psychology,  Charlotte  Bronte, 
and  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward.  The  New  English  Dictionary 
says,  "Analogical  form  but  avoided  by  most  writers,  or  usxl 
only  when  absolutely  necessary  for  clearness."  The  Encyclo- 
pedic Dictionary  says,  "Chiefly  American." 

The  writer  has  seen  onio  once  in  Dickens,  once  in  Conan 
Doyle,  and  more  or  less  frequently  in  a  few  popular  novelists 
of  the  day.  It  is  rarely  heard  from  elegant  speakers  or  in 
polite  colloquial  English. 

However,  if  np-ron  can  give  upon,  in  +  to  give  into,  etc., 
what  hinders  on -to  from  making  onto.^  Nothing  except  that 
usage  has  not  yet  favored  it. 

The  Century  Dictionary  quotes  from  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward 
(Robert  Elsmere),  "He  subsided  onto  the  music  bench  obe- 
diently. ' '  Dickens  in  David  Copperfield  says,  ' '  Over  the  little 
mantel-shelf  was  a  picture  of  the  Sarah  Jane  lugger,  built 
at  Sunderland,  with  a  real  little  wooden  stern  stuck  onto  it. ' ' 
It  should  be  said  that  the  writer  is  in  some  doubt  as  to  whether 


194  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Dickens  wrote  onto  or  on  to;  the  editions  differ.  The  same 
statement  might  be  made  as  to  some  other  passages  cited :  the 
printer  might  control  the  situation.  However,  there  are  sen- 
tences in  which  onto  is  not  exactly  eciuivalent  to  on  to. 


LXXXVII 

PARTIALLY  FOB  PARTLY 

Partially  (= partly)  was  put  on  his  forbidden  list  by 
"William  Cullen  Bryant.  A.  S.  Hill  ^  says  that  careful  writers 
avoid  it.  White  -  condemned,  though  citing  Swinburne  as 
using  it.  Genung^  says,  "had  better  not  be  used,"  but  gives 
no  reason  for  his  warning. 

The  Centuiy  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  passages 
from  Stirling  and  Herbert  Spencer.  Webster  recognizes  it, 
with  a  quotation  from  Sir  Thomas  Browne.  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Ruskin.  Worcester  and  the 
Standard  recognize  it.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recog- 
nizes it,  quoting  Gabriel  Harvey,  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  Swin- 
burne, liyell,  and  the  Educational  Revieiv.  Fitzedward  Hall"* 
defends  it,  both  on  the  ground  of  euphony  and  good  usage. 
He  quotes  the  following  authors  as  using  it :  Southey,  Lamb, 
Paley,  Newman,  Landor,  De  Quincey,  Ruskin,  Matthew  Arnold, 
Swinburne. 

The  author  has  seen  the  word  in  the  following: 

Sir   Thomas  Browne 1  George  P.  Marsh 3 

Lamb    2  Milman     2 

Wordsworth     1  Froude    1 

Poe    21  A.  J.  C.   Hare 1 

Hallam     1  Hawthorne     3 

Trench    2  Ruskin    1 


^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  269. 
^  Words  and  'I'lieir  Uses,  p.  143. 

3  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  323. 

4  Modern  English,  pp.  191,  192,  276. 


PABTIALLY  FOE  PARTLY  195 

Sir  Henry  Taylor    1  I.owcll    .'5 

Huxley    1  Henry  Bradley 1 

W.  D.  Whitney 4  H.  W.   Mabie 1 

Macaulay   1  Stevenson     1 

John  Fiske   1  W.  W.   Skeat 4 

Henry  Dnimmond    4  George  Saintsbury   2 

Edward   Dowden    2  Professor  O.  F.  Emerson 1 

Here  are  nearly  40  authors  in  all.  We  have  both  scholar- 
ship and  standard  usage  supporting  partially;  only  a  few 
authorities  condemning  it.  Polite  colloquial  usage  favors  it 
considerably.  Hill's  statement,  made  in  1902,  the  tables  above 
prove  utterly  unwarranted. 

Among  all  our  authors  Poe  is  probably  most  partial  to  this 
word:  can  one  great  author  estal)lish  a  word? 

Partially  and  partly  have  been  running  parallel  in  the  lan- 
guage for  hundreds  of  years,  nsed  on  the  same  page.  Partly 
is  used  more  frequently.  It  would  seem  that  partially  is 
rare  in  the  Elizabethan  period ;  it  spread  considerably  in 
the  nineteenth  century.  It  was  brought  to  America  by  the 
educated  colonists  and  is  used  in  the  old  colonial  chronicles 
of  Virginia. 

The  adjective  partial  (=in  part)  is  well  established,  and 
seems  to  have  no  enemies.  No  doubt  its  wide  use  has  helped 
the  adverb:  it  is  a  short  step  from  "a  partial  eclipse  of  the 
sun"  to  ''the  sun  was  partially  eclipsed." 

Milman  (History  of  the  Jews)  says,  "they  are  not  of  one 
speech,  they  have  either  entirely  or  partially  ceased  to  be 
mutually  intelligible."  J.  A.  Froude  {Dissolution  of  the 
Monasteries)  says,  "And  yet,  unreasonable  though  these  de- 
mands may  be,  it  happens,  after  all,  that  we  are  able  partially 
to  gratify  them."    Wordsworth  in  the  Prelude  says, 

Wlien    into    air    had    partiaUij    dissolved 
That  vision. 

Stevenson  in  his  Truth   of  Intercourse   says,   "But  what   is 
thus  made  plain  to  our  apprehensions  in  the  ease  of  a  foreign 


196  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

language  is  partialU/  true  even  with  the  tongue  we  learned  in 
childhood."  A.  J,  C.  Hare  uses  portially  and  partly  in  the 
same  sentence  :  "It  was  partially  the  fact  that  I  had  no  money 
to  spend  in  my  own  way,  and  that  my  bills  were  always  over- 
looked and  commented  upon,  and  partly  that  I  had  known  no 
other  young  men,"  etc.  The  list  of  authors  above  includes 
several  very  eminent  English  scholars  and  a  number  of  great 
stylists.  To  the  former  class  we  may  add  Lounsbury,  who 
uses  the  word  pretty  frequently. 


LXXXVIII 

PLENTY  AS  PREDICATE  ADJECTIVE 

As  coniparpil  with  America,  servants  are  plenty  and  good.  (Price 
Collier.) 

The  use  of  plenty  as  an  adjective  was  condemned  by  George 
Campbell  ^  in  1776.  He  calls  it  a  gross  vulgarism,  though 
found  in  writers  of  considerable  merit.  This  "gross  vul- 
garism" was  at  that  time  classic  in  Shakespeare  and  was 
being  used  by  such  writers  as  Goldsmith  and  Franklin ;  had 
recently  been  used  by  Bishop  Berkeley,  and  had  been  in  the 
literature  for  three  centuries.  A.  S.  Hill-  says,  "no  longer 
good  English."  Herrick  and  Damon,"  Quackenbos,*  Genung,'* 
the  Standard  and  the  Encyclopedic  dictionaries  all  say,  * '  Col- 
loquial." "Webster  says,  "Obsolete  or  colloquial."  The  New 
English  Dictionary  says,  "Now  chiefly  colloquial,"  but  quotes 
from  J.  R.  Lowell  among  recent  authors.  As  showing  that 
the  word  used  to  be  literary,  the  N.  E.  D.  quotes  the  Cursor 
Muhdi,  Ipomadon,  Lord  Berners,  Shakespeare,  Defoe,  Sydney 

">■  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,  Book  II,  chap.  III.  section  III. 
^  Beginninps  of  Uhrtoric  and  Composition,  p.  255. 
^Neto  CoTnpo8ition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  260. 
*  Practical  Rhetoric,  ISOfi.  p.  242. 
6  Outlines  of  Rhetoric.  1900,  p.  324. 


PLENTY  AS  PREDICATE  ADJECTIVE  197 

Smith,  aud  some  minor  writers.  Fitzedward  Hall  ^  in  1873 
puts  plenty  in  his  Grandfathers'  English,  not  defending  it 
as  current.  Some  of  the  dictionaries  that  call  it  "colloquial 
now"  quote  Shakespeare,  Goldsmith,  and  Franklin.  Worces- 
ter recognizes  it  as  an  adjective.  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant-  records 
it  as  seen  in  the  literature  of  c.  a.d.  l-tOO.  The  \\  riter  has  seen 
the  following  cases : 

Shakespeare 1  Poe 3 

Bishop  Berkeley   1  Price  Collier    1 

Goldsmith     1  John    Fiske 1 

Byron    1  Stevenson 1 

Though  rare  in  recent  literature,  it  has  an  unbroken  histoiy 
for  over  five  centuries. 

The  word  plenty  as  a  predicate  adjective  is  made  classic  in 
the  literature  by  two  passages,  one  humorous  and  the  other 
pathetic.  The  first  is  from  Shakespeare  (I  Hen.  IV,  II,  iv, 
264 ff.)  :  "If  reasons  were  as  plenty  as  blackberries,  I  would 
give  no  man  a  reason  upon  compulsion."  The  other  is  from 
Byron : 

And  the  myrtle  and  ivy  of  sweet  two-and-twenty 
Are  worth  all  your  laurels,  though  ever  so  plenty. 

This  use  of  the  word  survives  to  some  extent  in  the  polite  col- 
loquial English  of  some  of  the  old  states,  and  was  no  doubt 
brought  from  England  by  the  contemporaries  of  Shakespeare, 
Goldsmith,  and  Bishop  Berkeley.  George  Campbell,  then, 
was  utterly  unwarranted  in  calling  it  a  vulgarism,  and  very 
illogical  when  he  added,  "Though  found  in  writers  of  con- 
siderable merit."  How  can  the  two  statements  be  reconciled? 
John  Fiske  in  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors  says,  "In 
the  plantations,  thus  freed  from  the  presence  of  Indians, 
European  domestic  animals  have  become  plenty."  If  the 
English  of  Byron,  Franklin,  and  Sydney  Smith  has  already 

^Modern  Eiujlish,  p.  248. 
"The  Xcw  English,  I,  ISS. 


198  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

degenerated,  we   can   certainly   say   that   Fiske's  and  Price 
Collier's  may  be  regarded  as  literary. 

This  use  of  plenty  is  rare  and  seems  to  be  passing  out  of  the 
language :  the  author  is  simply  giving  its  history. 


LXXXIX 

THE  PLEONASTIC  PRONOUN 
And  Maud  she  walks  in  the  merry  greenwood.     (T.  B.  Aldrich.) 

The  pleonastic  pronoun  dates  back  to  the  Anglo-Saxon.  In 
that  period  of  English,  the  pronoun  was  used  either  before 
or  after  the  noun.  Both  uses  lasted  through  the  Middle  Eng- 
lish period  and  survive  to  some  extent  in  modern  English, 
mostly  in  poetry. 

The  type  seen  in  the  sentence  quoted  from  T.  B.  Aldrich 
was  common  in  Elizabethan  literature  and  survives  in  illit- 
erate English;  e.  g.,  ''Father,  he  is  sick,  but  Mother,  she  is 
better."  If  any  poet  of  our  day  wishes  to  use  it,  he  has 
tradition  in  his  support,  together  with  the  usage  of  the  fol- 
lowing authorities : 

Chaucer    1       Wordsworth     3 

William  Dunbar   1       Matthew    Arnold 1 

Latimer    14       Longfellow     1 

King  James  Bible 11       T.  B.  Aldrich 2 

Shakespeare     11       A.  H.  Clough 3 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher 1       Bryant    1 

Bunyan     1       Poe   17 

Prior 1      Browning   5 

Pope   1      D.   G.  Eossetti 1 

Southey    5      Carlyle    1 

Lamb    2       Sidney   Lanier    1 

Shelley    1       Barry    Cornwall 1 

F.  S.  Key 1 

All  recent  examples,  except  for  two  authors,  are  found  in 
poetry.    This  is  one  of  the  numerous  points  at  which  illiterate 


POLITICS— SINGULAR  OE  PLVBAL?  199 

and  poetic  visage  come  together.  The  only  cases  found  in 
nineteenth  century  prose  are  from  Poe  and  Carlyle,  who  are 
partial  to  archaic  forms. 

Of  this  pronoun  Henry  Sweet  ^  says,  ' '  A  vulgarism  in 
spoken  English,  but  used  often  in  literary  English  for  pic- 
turesqueness  and  quaintness."  This  explains  the  two  examples 
from  prose  literature  spoken  of.  This  mode  of  expression 
has  a  distinct  psychological  value,  as  the  unlettered  classes 
unconsciously  feel.  It  occurs  not  infrequently  in  current 
poetry  and  is  supported  by  high  authority. 

A  few  more  examples  will  show  how  the  pleonastic  pro- 
noun is  used  in  literature.    Longfellow  in  My  Lost  Youth  says, 

And   the  verse   of   that   sweet  old   song, 
It  flutters  and  murmurs  still. 

Lamb  (Old  Familiar  Faces)  says. 

How  some   iTiey  have  died,   and  some  ihey  have  left  me, 
And  some  are  taken  from  me;   all  are  departed. 

Carlyle  (The  Hero  as  Poet)  says,  "The  eye,  too,  it  looks  out  as 
in  a  kind  of  surprise,  a  kind  of  inquiry,  why  the  world  was  of 
such  a  sort. ' ' 

The  writer  is  not  advocating  this  use  of  the  pronoun  in 
prose,  but  merely  recording  usage. 


XC 

POLITICS— SIXGULAE  OE  PLUEAL? 

The  polilics  are  base.     (Emerson.) 

Polities  in  lis  historic  aspect  would  seem  to  have  had  a  great  fascina- 
tion for  him  as  indeed  it  nuist  have,  etc.     (Chesterton.) 

The  sentences  quoted  above  are  typical.  If  such  sentences 
are  about  equal  in  number,  we  shall  have  to  say  that  usage  is 
evenly  divided. 

^Xew  Etiglish  Grammar,  part  II,  p.  72. 


200  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Let  VIS  turn  first  to  those  grammars  and  rhetorics  that  take 
up  the  question.  Carpenter/  the  grammarian,  sa^^s  that 
politics  is  regularly  plural.  If  ' '  regularly ' '  means  ' '  usually, ' ' 
Carpenter  is  right.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  -  say,  ' '  usually  sin- 
gular,"  If  the  table  below  represents  the  usage  of  the  authors, 
these  last-named  grammarians  are  in  serious  error.  When  two 
such  grammars  differ  so  widely,  any  table  of  statistics  should 
be  heartily  welcomed. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  rhetorical  scholars.  A.  S.  HilP  recog- 
nizes both  singular  and  plural,  giving  one  example  of 
each  from  Anthony  Trollope.  Genung^  says  it  is  usually 
singular.  See  the  list  below  for  the  truth  or  error  of  this 
statement. 

Baskervill  and  Sewell  give  one  example  of  the  singular  from 
the  Century  Dictionary ;  one  of  the  plural  from  George  Wil- 
liam Curtis,  one  from  Macaulay,  one  from  Goldsmith.  Their 
statistics  contradict  their  theory.  The  New  English  Diction- 
ary quotes  three  plurals  from  Hume,  Junius,  and  Disraeli, 
and  quotes  some  minor  authors  that  use  the  singular  con- 
gruence. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  great  authors,  the  litterateurs,  and  men 
of  culture  not  so  famous  in  literature : 


Singular 

Thomas    Paine 1  Century   Dictionary 1 

Trollope    1  Encyclopedic     Dictionary ] 

Emerson     1  Chesterton    1 

Encyclopedia   Britannica    1  Price   Collier 2 

George  Eliot 1 

9  authorities;  10  cases. 

^  Principles  of  Englit^li  CSrummar,  p.  59. 
^English  Grammar,  p.  41. 

'Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  59. 
*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.   3124. 


POLITICS— SINGULAR  OB  PLUL'ALi'  201 


Plural 

Addison    2       Huxley    2 

Swift     1       Tliomas  Campbell 1 

Dr.   JoliDson    1      Emerson   2 

Thomas   Paine 1       George  Eliot  2 

Sheridan     1       George  William  Curtis 3 

Goldsmith     1       Saiutsbiirv   L' 

Charles  Lamb   1       James  Bryce   3 

Hallam   3       Lowell    4 

Matthew  Arnold 1      Froude    1 

Macaulay   5       Fiske     1 

Dickens     1       Sir  Henry   Taylor 2 

Poe    1      Price  Collier   2 

Thackeray    2      Justin   McCarthy 2 

Trollope      1      T.  N.  Page   1 

Bulwer    1       R.   II.   Stoddard 1 


30  authorities ;  52  examples. 

According  to  the  table,  the  word  iwUiics  is  plural  by  a 
ratio  of  30  to  9  authorities,  52  to  10  passages.  These  facts 
refute  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  grammarians  and  rhetorical 
scholars  quoted  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs  of  this  section. 

The  following  writers  are  found  on  both  sides :  Emerson, 
Thomas  Paine,  George  Eliot,  Trollope,  Price  Collier.  Polite 
colloquial  usage  is  probably  in  favor  of  the  plural. 

The  reader  will  pardon  a  personal  allusion.  The  author 
of  this  volume  had  always  heard  politics  used  in  the  plural, 
and  so  used  it  himself  until  he  saw  it  used  as  a  singular  by 
the  Century  Dictionary.  The  singular,  however,  never  sat 
comfortably  upon  either  his  tongue  or  his  penpoint.  Do  not 
the  statistics  gathered  in  this  course  of  reading  justify  him 
in  going  back  to  the  plural  ? 

The  tendency  in  words  in  -ics  is  to  take  the  singular  regi- 
men; such  has  been  the  case  with  mathematics,  ethics,  i^hysics, 
optics;  but  athletics  and  politics  seem  to  prefer  the  plural. 
It  is  of  course  possible  that  they  may  reverse  their  action  in 


'202  STUDIES  IX  -rSAGE 

the  future,  as  the  tendency  in  our  day  is  in  the  direction  of 
strict  grammatical  precision  in  such  matters.  An  impartial 
study  of  politics  from  Queen  Anne 's  day  to  the  present  shows 
that  it  is  prevailingly  plural,  plural  in  more  than  three-fourths 
of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  found.  Further  reading,  how- 
ever, might  possibly  change  the  figures  to  some  extent. 

Emerson  (Politics)  says,  "But  politics  rests  on  necessary 
foundations,  and  cannot  be  treated  with  levity."  Price  Col- 
lier (England  and  the  English)  says,  "In  America,  polities 
ranks  as  one  of  the  domestic  virtues ;  in  England,  politics  has 
heen,  and  is  largely  even  now,  the  obligatory  occupation  of  the 
few  who  can  afford  it."  In  the  same  volume  he  says,  "British 
politics,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  are  focused  upon  the  main- 
tenance in  freedom  and  comfort  of  thousands  of  British  house- 
holders," and  "Here  again  the  fact  that  politics,  domestic  and 
Imperial,  are  concentrated  in  London  during  a  few  months  in 
the  year  explains  to  the  American  how  this  can  be  so. ' '  Hux- 
ley (Science  and  Cidturc)  says,  "Party  politics  are  forbidden 
to  enter  into  the  minds  of  either,  so  far  as  the  work  of  the 
College  is  concerned."  Matthew  Arnold  in  his  essay  on  Heine 
says,  "he  read  French  politics  by  no  means  as  we  in  England, 
most  of  us,  read  them."  Macaulay  {Retiring  Speech,  1849) 
says,  "I  have  quitted  politics.  I  quitted  them  without  one 
feeling  of  resentment,  without  one  feeling  of  regret." 


XCI 

POSSESSIVE  CASE  OF  INANIMATE  OBJECTS 

After  life's  fitful  fever  he  sleeps  well.     (Shal-espeare.) 

They  had  come  to  take  possession  of  the  city's  wealth.     (Motlejj.) 

Shall  the  possessive  s  be  used  of  things  without  life?  Or 
shall  the  o/-genitive  be  required,  certainly  in  prose?  These 
are  disputed  points  in  English. 


POSSESSIVE  CASE  OF  INANIMATE  OBJECTS  203 

Henry  Sweet^  says  that  the  possessive  s  is  restricted,  etc., 
mainly  to  nouns  denoting  living  beings.  Herrick  and  Damon  - 
say,  "The  possessive  form  in  s  should  not  be  used  of  inani- 
mate objects."  They  allow  a  few  exceptions  such  as  "the 
ship's  side",  "for  mercy's  sake",  "the  day's  work."  A.  S. 
HilP  says,  "The  tendency  of  the  best  modern  usage  is  to 
employ  the  objective  case  with  of,  rather  than  to  put  into  the 
possessive  case  a  noun  that  represents  a  thing  without  life." 
Genung*  in  his  high  school  book  says,  "In  ordinary  prose 
the  accepted  usage  of  the  possessive  form  is  limited,  for  the 
most  part,  (1)  to  persons;  (2)  to  time  expressions,  as  'after 
an  hour's  delay';  and  (3)  some  idioms,  as  'for  brevity's 
sake',  'a  day's  march.'  Beyond  this  usage  the  possessive 
form  is  to  be  employed  with  great  parsimony  and  caution." 
Under  his  division  (1),  Genung  should  say  "living  beings" 
instead  of  "persons,"  as  there  can  be  no  objection  to  putting 
the  s  after  a  word  denoting  a  bird,  an  animal,  a  fish,  etc. 
Even  the  cautious  Jespersen^  is  inaccurate  at  this  point. 
He  says,  "its  use  is  now  in  ordinary  prose  almost  restricted 
to  personal  beings."  This  does  not  include  birds  and 
animals,  which  should  be  included ;  and  the  table  below 
will  show  that  great  prose  writers  like  Scott  and  Hawthorne 
use  the  possessive  s  of  inanimate  objects,  and  that  Professor 
Genung  himself  uses  it  frequently  in  his  textbooks  on  rhetoric. 
Whether  the  possessive  form  is  used  "with  great  parsi- 
mony and  caution"  in  our  prose  literature,  as  Genung  thinks 
it  should  be,  the  reader  can  judge  from  the  list  of  authors 
below,  which  is  far  from  exhaustive. 

George  P.  Marsh "^  limits  the  possessive  case  to  "animated 
and  conscious  creatures" — a  statement  which,  while  better  than 

1  New  English  Grammar,  pp.  51,  52. 

^'Sew  Composition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  146. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  50. 

*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  55. 

"Groutli  and  structure  of  the  English  Language,  p.  181. 

"Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  p.  338. 


204  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

that  of  some  authors,  is  not  accurate.  Kittredge  and  Farley 
in  their  recent  textbook^  say,  "In  older  English  and  in  poetry 
the  possessive  case  of  nouns  is  freely  used,  but  in  modern  prose 
it  is  rare  unless  the  possessor  is  a  living  being.  A  phrase  with 
of  is  used  instead."  Coming  from  Professor  Kittredge,  these 
statements  will  carry  great  weight  in  many  quarters.  Let  us 
test  them  by  the  table. 

The  first  two  statements  are  indisputably  true :  the  s-  geni- 
tive was  universal  in  older  English  and  is,  as  far  as  the  writer 
has  noticed,  practically  universal  in  modern  poetry.  The 
second  statement,  that  the  possessive  s  is  rare  in  prose  except 
in  the  case  of  nouns  denoting  living  beings,  is  not  accurate. 
In  the  list  of  authors  named  below  we  see  over  50  who  wrote 
no  poetry  at  all  and  who  use  this  possessive  in  at  least  275 
passages. 

As  to  the  strict  rule  laid  down  by  the  authors  quoted  above, 
Professor  John  Earle  -  says,  "This  doctrine  cannot  be  rigidly 
insisted  upon. ' '  Professor  Earle  is  right :  his  statement  can 
be  verified  from  the  literature  and  from  the  usage  of  reputable 
speakers. 

The  following  authorities  use  the  possessive  s  of  things 
without  life: 

John    Mandeville 1  Pope   32 

Malory    2  Richardson     1 

Gorboduc   S  Jonathan    Edwards 2 

Shakespeare     29  Thomas  Paine 1 

Ben  Jonson    2  Thomas   Gray    2 

Philip  Sidney    1  Irving 1 

Two  Noble  Kinsmen 1  Hazlitt    1 

King  James  Bible 6  Byron    6 

James  Shirley 1  Scott   15 

John  Webster   1  Southey    7 

Milton     3  Coleridge    1 

Robert  Herrick   3  James  Montgomery 3 

Bishop   Burnet 1  Burns    3 

^Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  4"). 
^PMJoXogv  of  the  Englinh  Tongue,  1SS7,  p.  535. 


POSSESSIVE  CASE  OF  INANIMATE  OBJECTS 


205 


Christoiiher  North    7 

Lamb    1 

I'hilip  Frenej'.u   4 

Leigh  Hunt   1 

W.  E.  Channing 1 

Keble    1 

Wordsworth  1 

Thomas   Campbell    6 

Cowper   1 

George  Eliot  2 

Emerson     3 

Thackeray    6 

Wendell  Phillips 5 

Motley    2 

Thoreau    3 

Longfellow     7 

Poe    9 

Cooper    1 

Walt  Whitman    3 

Dickens     2 

Bayard   Taylor    112 

Carlyle    1 

Hawthorne 31 

Bryant    3 

Holmes     5 

Churton    Collins 3 

Matthew    Arnold 27 

J.  R.  Lowell   15 

J.   A.   Froude 4 

J.   G.  Whittier 28 

Browning     43 


Dean  Trench   2 

F.  W.  Faber   1 

F.  T.  Palgrave 1 

Sidney  Lee    3 

Henry  van  Dyke 2 

Sidney  Lanier 3 

P.  H.  Hayne 81 

J.   F.  Genung 19 

William  James   3 

Ruskin    2 

T.  B.  Aldrich    1 

E.  L.  Godkin 1 

Mrs.   H.   Ward 3 

J.  F.  D.  Maurice 1 

A.   H.  Clough 30 

T.  N.  Page 1 

H.  N.  Hudson 1 

E.    B.    Browning 10 

Bret   Harte 6 

Stopford    Brooke 8 

G.  K.  Chesterton 2 

D.  G.  Mitchell 5 

George  William  Curtis 1 

John    Burroughs    1 

Price  Collier    11 

John  Fiske    8 

G.  W.  Cable 17 

Katharine  Lee  Bates 1 

Stevenson   2 

H.  W.  Mabie 1 


Here  are  87  authorities  and  700  passages.  If  one  man,  in  a 
limited  course  of  reading,  has  recorded  this  number,  how  many 
thousands  of  examples  might  be  gathered  from  the  literature  ? 
The  statements  of  Marsh,  Sweet,  Hill,  Herrick  and  Damon, 
Jespersen,  and  Genung  fall  to  the  ground  and  Earle's  is  the 
only  safe  one. 

Let  us  draw  some  inferences  from  the  table. 

Genung  does  not  use  the  "parsimony  and  caution"  that  he 


206  STVDIES  IN  USAGE 

urges  upon  the  student :  in  his  coUege  textbooks  the  writer  has 
seen  at  least  nineteen  cases  of  the  s  under  discussion. 

The  critics  and  verbalists  should  draw  a  clear  distinction 
between  the  prose  and  the  poetical  use  of  this  construction. 
If  it  is  in  the  nature  of  personification,  as  some  say,  it  should 
certainly  be  treated  as  a  legitimate  poetic  license.  It  is  exceed- 
ingly common  in  Bayard  Taylor,  Paul  H.  Hayne,  Robert 
Browning,  Clough,  Shakespeare,  and  other  poets.  The  pos- 
sessive s,  hoM'ever,  is  not  limited  to  poetry :  it  is  strong  in 
Scott,  Hawthorne,  Genung,  Price  Collier,  Cable,  and  other 
prose  writers. 

It  is  very  convenient.  It  often  saves  a  plethora  of  phrases, 
es])ecially  of-  plirases.  It  is  rapid  and  concise,  making  for 
rapidity.  Try  the  of-  phrase  in  the  two  sentences  at  the  head 
of  this  section  and  feel  how  the  genius  of  the  writers  led 
them  to  the  old  syntax;  the  "phrasal  genitive"  would  be  in- 
tolerable. 

It  is  a  survival  of  the  old  inflectional  genitive ;  why  should 
it  be  so  much  condemned  by  the  grammarians  and  rhetorical 
scholars  ?  It  is  certainly  vigorous  in  periodical  literature  and 
in  the  best  current  literature  of  the  day. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  exhaust  this  subject;  the  number 
of  passages  could  be  increased  indefinitely.  It  is  almost  impos- 
sible to  read  any  good  book  by  a  reputable  writer  without 
seeing  this  interdicted  locution  at  frequent  intervals ;  the  rule 
is  not  based  upon  the  literature. 

It  may  be  well  to  quote  a  few  more  passages  from  standard 
prose  literature.  Ruskin  (Sesame  and  Lilies)  says,  "each  of 
them  placed  him  at  his  table's  head,  and  all  feasted  in  his 
presence";  "Men  shall  bow  before  it,  .  .  .  build  palaces  for 
it,  feast  with  it  at  their  tables'  heads  all  the  night  long,"  etc. 
Matthew  Arnold  (Essays)  says,  "this  state  of  things  is  the  true 
basis  for  the  creative  power's  exercise";  "it  is  a  great  thing 
to  have  this  part  of  your  model's  general  effect  already  given 
you  in  your  metre"  (On  Translating  Homer).    Motley  in  the 


POSSESSIVE  CASE  OF  INANIMATE  OBJECTS  207 

Dutch  Be  public  says,  "  Officered  by  many  other  scions  of  Eng~ 
land's  aristocracy."  Poe  in  his  WiUiiun  \yilso)i  says,  "Yet  in 
fact — in  the  fact  of  the  world's  view — how  little  was  there  to 
remember!  The  morning's  awakening,  the  nightly  summons 
to  bed,"  etc.;  ''let  us  forbear  praising  the  epic  on  the  effort's 
account."  (The  Poetic  Principle.)  Hawthorne  in  The  Cus- 
tom House  says,  "They  spoke  with  far  more  interest  and 
unction  of  their  morning's  breakfast,  or  yesterday's,  today's, 
or  tomorrow's  dinner,  than  of  the  shipwreck  of  forty  or  fifty 
years  ago,  and  all  the  world's  wonders  which  they  had  wit- 
nessed with  their  youthful  eyes  ..."  "one  of  the  most 
wonderful  specimens  of  wintergreen  that  you  would  be  likely 
to  discover  in  a  lifetime's  search."  Emerson  (Love)  says, 
"it  may  seem  to  many  men,  in  revising  their  experience,  that 
they  have  no  fairer  page  in  their  life's  book  than  the  delicious 
memory  of  some  passages,"  etc.  Froude  says,  "that  was  he 
who,  when  the  earth's  mighty  ones  were  banded  together  to 
crush  him  under  their  armed  heels, spoke  but  one  little  word." 
(Lives  of  the  Sai)tts.) 

The  writer  is  no  special  pleader  for  the  old  inflectional  geni- 
tive ;  in  fact  he  generally  uses  the  phrasal  genitive.  The  object 
of  the  foregoing  discussion  is  to  show  that  the  5-genitive  is 
still  vigorous  in  the  literature  and  that  the  statements  of 
many  textbook  writers  are  too  sweeping.  Why  not  say,  "The 
phrasal  genitive  is  used  more  in  both  prose  and  poetry, 
especially  in  the  former"? 


208  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


XCII 

POSSESSIVE  CASE  AS  ANTECEDENT   TO  A  EELATIVE 
PEONOUN 

Nor  ask 
Her  name  to  whom  ye  yield  it  till  her  time 
To  tell  joxi.      (Tennyson.) 

Had  lip  inherited  a  portion  of  the  great  legislator's  prophetic  powers, 
u'linsr  statue  we  had  been  contemplating,  etc.   .  .  .    (Coleridge.) 

Should  the  possessive  case  be  used  as  antecedent  to  a  rela- 
tive pronoun  ? 

Sentences  like  those  quoted  above  are  found  all  through  the 
literature.  In  the  first  sentence,  her,  the  possessive  pronoun,  is 
the  antecedent  of  whom;  in  the  second,  tlie  possessive  legis- 
lator's is  the  antecedent  of  whose.  In  regard  to  this  construc- 
tion, A.  S.  HilP  says,  "an  archaism  allowable  in  verse  but 
to  be  avoided  in  prose. ' '  Genung  -  says,  ' '  an  antecedent  is  not 
prominent  enough  by  being  in  the  possessive  ease ;  it  ought 
to  be  either  nominative  or  objective."  Here  we  see  two  of 
our  best  rhetorical  scholars  condemning  the  possessive  + 
relative  clause. 

Let  us  turn  to  some  of  our  best  grammarians.  Miitzner^ 
treats  this  construction  in  his  grammar,  quoting  examples  from 
Shakespeare,  Milton,  Addison,  Cowper,  Byron,  and  Scott, 
about  twelve  cases  altogether.  He  traces  it  as  far  back  as 
Chaucer.  Kellner^  recognizes  this  constraction,  tracing  it 
from  a})Out  a.d.  1330,  through  Chaucer,  Shakespeare,  and 
Milton.  He  says,  "Owing  to  the  original  meaning  of  my  = 
of  me,  a  possessive  pronoun  is  often  antecedent  to  a  relative 
one. ' '     Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  in  their  grammar  say,  ' '  The 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  4.'?o. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  89. 

^English  Grainmar,  (Grcce's  translation)    III.  p.  218. 

*  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax,  p.  190. 

'  English  Grammar,  p.  285. 


POSSESSIVE  CASE  AS  ANTECEDENT 


209 


possessive  forms  of  personal  pronouns  and  also  of  nouns  are 
sometimes  found  as  antecedents  of  relatives.  This  usage  is 
not  frequent.  The  antecedent  is  usually  nominative  or  objec- 
tive, as  the  use  of  the  possessive  is  less  likely  to  be  clear." 
Abbott^  says,  "An  antecedent  is  rarely  implied  in  a  possessive 
adjective,  .  .  .  but  this  is  common  in  Sluikespeare. "  Notice 
that  the  grammarians  do  not  condenni  the  construction ;  only 
one  of  the  three  books  quoted  criticizes  it  at  all  unfavorably. 
Note,  again,  that  Kellner  says  "often"  found,  while  Abbott 
and  Baskervill  quote  sentences  from  Scott,  De  Quincey, 
Macaulay,  Euskin,  Charles  Brockden  Brown,  and  Thackeray, 
two  of  whom  are  not  in  our  table. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases : 


Chaucer    1 

Malory    3 

Latimer    i 

King  James  Bible   7 

Massinger    1 

Ben  Jonson    2 

Marlowe   1^ 

Shakespeare     16 

Titus  Andrcnicus 1 

DoEue   1 

Milton     9 

Izaak  Walton ' 1 

Sir   Thomas  Browne 5 

Jeremy   Taylor    1 

Prayer  Book 1 

Joseph    Hall 1 

Dryden   '2 

Addison    2 

Steele 1 

Swift    1 

Burnet    3 

Prior     1 

Pope    3 

Boswell 7 


Dr.    Johnson    2 

Sterne     1 

Christoplior  North    2 

Franklin     5 

Southey    1 

Coleridge    2 

Thomas  Campbell 1 

Lamb    4 

Irving 1 

Scott 2 

Hallam  2 

De  Quincey   4 

George  Eliot 2 

Jean  Ingelow    1 

Mrs.  Gaskell    1 

Matthew   Arnold    1 

Macaulay  3 

Thackeray    10 

Lowell    3 

Longfellow     1 

Poe    1 

Tennyson    G 

Carlyle    2 

Phillips    Brooks    1 


^  How  to  Pame,  p.  L'TO.     SJiakextiearian  Grammar,  §218. 


210  STrniFS  in  usage 

Motley    1       Bryant    1 

Holmes     2        Mrs.  Browning   1 

G.  AV.  Cable 1       A.  H.  Clough 2 

Dean  Trench   2       Browning     6 

W.   D.   Whitney 1       Phoebe  Cary 3 

P.   H.    Hayne 3       D.   G.   Eossetti 1 

The  lists  show  more  than  60  authors  and  more  than  150 
eases  of  the  construction  in  one  course  of  reading. 

The  possessive  +  relative  is  a  survival.  It  is  one  of  the 
last  strongholds  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  inflectional  genitive,  re- 
sisting the  sweep  of  the  phrasal  genitive.  Probably  it  is  on 
its  way  to  ultimate  extinction  but  is  far  from  extinct,  as  our 
statistics  and  the  statement  of  Kellner  prove  pretty  clearly. 
Henry  Sweet  says  that  this  locution  is  not  heard  in  spoken 
English ;  but  we  might  like  to  use  it  occasionally  if  the  purists 
would  permit  it.  If  this  construction  is  important  enough 
to  attract  the  attention  of  foreign  English  scholars,  why 
need  we  native-born  students  of  the  language  treat  it  as  an 
interloper?  If  the  old  possessive  case  must  die,  why  need  we 
pull  the  pillow  from  under  its  head  ?  The  language  will  let  it 
go  if  it  is  old  useless  luggage. 

Looking  back  for  a  moment — Hill  says,  "To  be  avoided  in 
prose. ' '  Are  writers  on  usage  to  dictate  what  is  good  English, 
or  should  they  base  their  statements  upon  the  usage  of  repu- 
table writers  ?  Our  lists  show  that  a  large  number  of  our  best 
prose  writers  use  this  constniction.  Genung  condemns  this 
5-genitive  on  the  ground  that  the  antecedent  is  not  prominent 
enough  when  in  the  genitive  ease.  Is  there  anything  in  this 
statement?  In  inflected  languages,  is  the  genitive  not  fre- 
quently antecedent  to  a  relative  pronoun?  Every  student 
of  languages  wall  immediately  answer,  ''Yes."  Genung,  then, 
should  give  some  other  reason  for  his  opposition. 

The  fact  is  there  is  no  real  objection  to  this  construction 
except  that  it  is  rather  uncommon,  a  remnant  of  the  old  inflec- 
tional system  which  bi'oke  down  in  the  Middle  English  period. 


POSSESSIVE  CASE  AS  ANTECEDENT  211 

If  a  writer  or  a  speaker  really  needs  it  occasionally,  why  not 
let  liini  use  it?  It  has  precedent,  brevity,  convenience,  and 
authority  in  its  favor. 

As  to  Abbott's  statement  that  the  possessive ^  relative  pro- 
noun is  rare,  it  may  ])e  said  that  the  150  cases  cited  above 
could  easily  be  multiplied  fourfold  by  a  wider  course  of 
reading. 

Thackeray  uses  this  construction  at  least  nine  times  in 
Henry  Esmond;  Milton,  in  Paradise  Lost  and  Paradise 
Regained,  at  least  nine  times.  Milton  {Paradise  Regained) 
says, 

His  lot  uho  dares  be  singularly  good. 
Again  : 

I  seek  not  mine,  l)ut  His 
Who  sent  nie,  and   thereby  witness  whence  I  am. 

Pope  {Essay  on  Criticism)  says. 

His  praise  is  lost,  u-lio  stays,  till  all  commend. 

Yet  shun   their  fault,  uho,  scandalously  nice, 
Will  needs  mistake  an  author  into  vice. 

Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "a  groundless  report  that 
has  been  raised,  to  a  gentleman's  disadvantage  of  ivhom  I  must 
declare  myself  an  admirer,"  and,  "This  river  is  called  to  this 
very  day,  from  his  name  wJio  perished  in  it,  the  river  Har- 
path."  Matthew  Arnold  {On  Translating  Homer)  says,  "It 
must  not  be  Cowper's  blank  verse,  who  has  studied  Milton's 
pregnant  manner  with  such  effect,"  etc.  Lowell  {Essay  on 
Keats)  says,  "The  thought  or  feeling  a  thousand  times  re- 
peated becomes  his  at  last  tvho  utters  it  best. ' ' 


212  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

XCIII 

POUND  AS  A  PLURAL 

Students  of  Anglo-Saxon  will  remember  that  pound  belonged 
to  a  group  of  words  that  made  no  change  for  the  nominative 
and  accusative  plural.  IMost  of  these  words,  however,  took  on 
the  standard  s-plural  at  an  early  period.  Pound  long  held 
on  to  its  ancient  plural,  as  it  still  does  in  unlettered  English. 
The  writer  was  interested  to  see  how  long  tliis  old  form  sur- 
vived in  the  literature ;  hence  this  section. 

Pound  is  used  by  Tyndale  and  is  the  regular  plural  in 
Latimer.  Both  forms  occur  in  the  Interlude  of  Thcrsytes. 
The  plural  pound  occurs  several  times  in  the  Bible  and  at 
least  80  times  in  Shakespeare.  "I  will  take  the  ghost's  word 
for  a  thousand  pound,"  is  the  most  familiar  case  in  Shakes- 
peare. It  is  used  by  Christopher  Marlowe.  In  Queen  Anne's 
day,  Prior  says,  ''I'll  hold  ten  pound  my  dream  is  out";  and 
Pope,  ''Or  let  it  cost  five  hundred  pound."  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin uses  it  in  his  Autobiography . 

These  are  the  most  recent  cases  that  the  WTiter  has  seen  in 
the  literature ;  there  may  be  others  later.  Browning  would  not 
hesitate  to  use  it. 

In  polite  colloquial  English  and  in  the  current  literature 
of  England,  phrases  like  "three  pound  ten"  (=£3.  10s.)  are 
used  very  widely.  "Twelve  pound  weight"  is  cited  as  good 
English  by  Nesfield.^ 

'^  Englhh  Grammnr  Past  and  Present,  p.  22. 


PEEPOSITIOX  AT  END  OF  SENTENCE  213 

XCIV 

THE  PEEPOSITION  AT   THE   END   OF  A   SENTENCE 

Many  teae-her.s  and  jseliuulbooks  tell  iis  that  a  sentence  must 
never  end  ^vitli  a  preposition.  Blair  gave  wide  vogue  to  this 
canon.  In  his  Rhetoric,^  long  a  standard  book,  he  says:  "we 
should  always  avoid  concluding  with  any  of  those  particles 
whi<.'li  mark  the  cases  of  nouns,  of,  to,  from,  with,  hy.  .  .  . 
This  is  a  phraseology  which  all  correct  writers  shun,  and  w4th 
reason."  He  adds  that  sentences  of  this  kind  are  lacking  in 
dignity  and  also  that  it  is  disagreeable  for  the  mind  to  be  left 
pausing  upon  a  word  which  does  not  convey  any  idea  or  form 
any  picture  in  the  fancy.  This  view  is  still  held  in  many  quar- 
ters. It  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  school  Rhetoric  written  by 
John  S.  Hart  and  revised  hy  Professor  J.  M.  Hart,  his  dis- 
tinguished son.  "End  wdth  words  that  deserve  distinction," 
say  Professors  J.  F.  Genung  and  Barrett  Wendell  in  their 
textbooks.  This  rule  puts  them  in  the  same  list  as  Blair 
and  the  Harts. 

Professor  George  P.  Krapp-  is  on  the  other  side:  he  thinks 
the  rule  too  strict.  Professor  A.  S.  Hill,"  also,  comliats  this 
hard-and-fast  rule  and  says  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
practice  of  the  good  authors.  He  quotes  passages  from 
Shakespeare,  Addison,  Goldsmith,  Jane  Austen,  Euskin,  Mrs. 
Oliphant,  and  Stevenson.  Hill,  however,  goes  on  to  say  that, 
while  good  authors  do  not  hesitate  to  end  a  sentence  Avith  a 
preposition  when  they  think  that  clearness,  force,  or  ease 
demands  it,  they  often,  perhaps  usually,  put  the  preposition 
elseM'here.    This  is  no  doubt  true. 

A  pretty  recent  statement  on  this  subject  is  from  Jespersen,* 

1  Pp.  ino,  i.-ii. 

'^Modern  English,  pp.  .'JIS,  319. 

^  Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  489,  490. 

^Oroicth  and  Structure  of  the  Euglixlt  Litngmigc,  p.  128. 


214 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


the  Danish  scholar.  He  says  that  this  is  "a  genuine  English 
idiom  of  long  standing  in  the  language  and  found  very  fre- 
quently in  all  writers  of  natural  prose  and  verse. ' '  Jespersen 
attributes  the  prejudice  against  it  to  the  influence  of  Latin 
syntax  upon  English,  and  says  that  Dryden,  no  doubt  under 
this  influence,  revised  some  of  his  sentences,  e.g.,  "The  age  I 
live  in"  to  "The  age  in  which  I  live." 

The  most  recent  statement  on  this  subject  is  made  by  Kit- 
tredge  and  Farley  in  their  grammar:^  "A  preposition  may 
stand  at  the  end  of  a  sentence.  .  .  .  This  order,  though  infor- 
mal, is  common  in  the  best  authors." 

The  following  figures  will  speak  for  themselves : 


Malory   2 

Thomas  More 1 

Latimer    1 

King  James  Bible 4 

Shakespeare     33 

Fletcher  and  Shakespeare 1 

Marlowe   2 

Massinger     33 

Dekker    1 

Lyly    1 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher 1 

Hobbes     1 

South    3 

Milton     1 

Burnet    3 

Clarendon     1 

Baxter    .• 1 

Addison    17 

Dr.    Johnson 1 

Goldsmith     4 

Fielding   14 

Dr.  Blair    1 

Cowper    2 

George  Camiibell    2 

Burke    2 


Franklin     3 

Lamb    33 

Scott  2 

Christopher  Nortli    1 

Leigh  Hunt   1 

Irving     1 

Jane  Austen    2 

Hawthorne     14 

Dean  Trench   2 

Holmes   47 

Poe    2 

Sir  Henry  Taylor 13 

George  Eliot   15 

Herbert   Spencer    2 

Huxley   2 

Lowell    1 

Longfellow    1 

Saintsbury     3 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 1 

Edwin  Arnold   1 

Henry   Drummond 2 

Ruskin    5 

Sir  William  Hamilton 1 

Carlyle    22 


»  P.  149. 


PBEPOSITION  AT  END  OF  SENTENCE  215 

Kingsley    1       Morris    2 

Froude    2       William  Minto    5 

Clough    2       Professor  John  Earle 3 

Emerson     4      J.  F.  Genung 2 

Bulwer    2       Bagehot    4 

Thackeray    4      Freeman     5 

Browning     5       D.  G.  Mitchell 1 

riske     7       Mrs.  H.  Ward 1 

Daniel  Webster 1       Stevenson     8 

Phillips  Brooks 4       Matthew  Arnold 1 

Here  are  70  authorities,  in  over  300  passages,  all  the  way 
from  Llalory  to  the  present. 

It  is  too  sirict  to  say  that  a  sentence  must  never  close  with 
a  preposition.  We  can  say  that  it  is  not  the  regular  habit  of 
reputable  authors  to  end  a  sentence  in  this  way ;  but  this  rule, 
like  all  other  "hide-bound"  rules,  is  subject  to  numerous 
exceptions.  We  could  go  on  indefinitely  collecting  examples 
from  many  reputable  authors.  It  is  true  that  it  is  better  to 
end  a  sentence  with  a  word  that  "deserves  distinction," 
provided  we  do  not  sacrifice  something  mpre  important.  There 
are  times,  however,  when  to  put  the  preposition  before  its 
noun  or  pronoun  would  be  almost  intolerable.  For  instance, 
John  Fiske  says,  "In  1640,  King  Charles  found  it  impossible 
to  get  on  any  longer  without  a  parliament,  and  he  sum- 
moned one  which  he  was  never  afterward  able  to  get  rid 
of."  "Of  ivhicJi  he  was  never  afterward  able  to  get  rid," 
shall  we  say?  No;  that  would  be  out-purizing  the  purists 
and  would  also  destroy  the  cadence  of  the  sentence. 

The  language  has  never  positively  required  the  preposition 
to  stand  close  to  its  "object."  In  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  the 
preposition  frequently  stood  near  the  end  of  the  clause,  just 
before  the  verb  at  the  end,  and  far  away  from  its  noun  or 
pronoun ;  e.g.,  ' '  The  house  which  he  for  many  years  happily 
i)i  lived"  would  be  good  Anglo-Saxon.  This  survived  in 
Middle  English  ;  e.g.,  Chaucer  says,  "And  mo  than  I  kan  make 
of  mencioun."    In  Piers  Plowman  we  have  "that  I  before  of 


216  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

seyde."  The  preposition  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  sentence 
is  probabh^  due  to  Scandinavian  influence,  as  Toller  suggests 
in  his  Outlines  of  the  Ilistori]  of  the  Enylish  Language? 

In  public  discourse  and  in  conversation,  this  rule  is  violated 
very  frequently.  The  speaker  gets  his  relative  pronoun 
straight,  "which,"  for  instance;  but  not  until  he  gets  near  the 
end  of  his  sentence  does  he  fully  realize  that  his  relative  needs 
a  preposition;  e.g.,  "We  venerate  the  house,  however  humble 
its  appearance,  ivhich  a  great  man  was  horn  in."  After  get- 
ting almost  through  the  sentence,  it  would  be  puristic  and 
pedantic  to  go  back  and  say  "in  which." 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  joretty  common 
for  good  writers  to  end  an  internal  clause  with  a  preposition : 
this  also  used  to  be  condemned  in  many  schoolrooms. 

We  may  now  pass  on  to  quote  a  few  sentences  from  eminent 
authors.  Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "there  are  very  few 
celebrated  books,  either  in  the  learned  or  the  modern  tongues, 
which  I  am  not  acquainted  with";  "It  is  certain  the  trunk- 
maker  has  saved  many  a  good  play,  and  brought  many  a 
graceful  actor  into  reputation,  who  would  not  otherwise  have 
been  taken  notice  of."  Burke  in  Conciliation  says,  "I  charge 
therefore  to  this  new  and  unfortunate  system  the  loss  not  only 
of  peace,  of  union,  and  of  commerce,  but  even  of  revenue, 
which  its  friends  are  contending  for";  "your  colonies  become 
suspicious,  restive,  and  untractable,  whenever  they  see  the 
least  attempt  to  wrest  from  them  by  force  or  shuffle  from 
them  by  chicane,  what  they  think  the  only  advantage  worth 
living  for."  Froude  (Erasmus  and  Luther)  says,  "Wanting 
sadly  in  many  qualities  which  the  liberal  mind  cannot  dispense 
with,"  and,  "little  if  at  all  better  than  the  popes  and  cardi- 
nals wiiom  they  were  fighting  against."  Hawthorne  (Custoyn 
House)  says,  "Thus,  by  an  inevitable  necessity,  as  a  magnet 
attracts  steel  filings,  so  did  our  man  of  business  draw  to 
himself  the  difficulties  which  everybody  met  ivith,"  and,  "to 

1  p.  150,  note. 


PBETTY  AS  AN  ADVERB  217 

find  how  utterly  devoid  of  siguificauce,  beyond  that  circle, 
is  all  that  he  achieves,  and  all  he  aims  at."  Ruskin  in  The 
Crown  of  Wild  Olives  says,  "doing  them  at  nights  carefully, 
with  her  bandage  off,  and  through  acutest  spectacles  (the  only 
modern  scientific  invention  she  cares  about). ''^ 


XCV 

PRETTY  AS  AN^  ADVEEB 

We  sometimes  see  letters  in  the  query  columns  of  the  papers 
and  periodicals  asking  whether  it  is  right  to  say  "It  is  pretty 
warm,  pretty  cool,"  etc.  The  writer  was  interested  in  watch- 
ing this  use  of  the  word  in  the  literature. 

The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Bunyan, 
Addison,  Sheridan,  and  Goldsmith.  Webster  recognizes  it, 
with  a  passage  from  Atterbury.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  quoting  Burke.  Worcester  and  the  Standard 
recognize  it.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quot- 
ing Florio,  Massinger,  Alexander  Hamilton,  Fielding,  Sheri- 
dan, Thomas  Hughes,  and  Bryce.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  say 
that  "it  has  a  wider  adverbial  use  than  it  gets  credit  for," 
and  cite  the  following  authors  as  using  it :  Fielding,  Defoe, 
Burke,  Franklin,  Holmes,  Dickens,  Kingsley,  Thackeray,  Pres- 
cott,  De  Quincey,  Emerson,  T.  B.  Aldrich. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  passages : 

Pepys    1  Boswell     .  . . ... .  .7i . .-, .;..".;;'..  5 

John  Evelyn    1  Burke .;...;.  .'.  .  1 

Jonathan    Edwards 1  Goldsmith    , .  .  1 

Defoe    3  Chesterfield .  5 

Addison    4  George  Campbell 5 

Swift    2  Franklin     V.  .  .  ... .  .  3 

Fielding   30  Coleridge    -.'.......  2 

Dr.  Johnson    3  Scott wi,r.  ..i .  1 

1  English  Grammar,  p.  1S6. 


218  STUDIES  IX  rSAGE 

Do  Quiiii'oy 3       "WiUiam   Minto 2 

Hazlitt   1       J.  A.  Froude 1 

Lamb    14       J.  E.  Lowell 1 

Poe   5       John  Fiske 10 

Hallam 8       T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 1 

Bryant 1       Henry  Bradley 1 

Bulwer    5       W.   D.  Whitney 1 

Hawthorne 2       George  P.  Marsh 1 

E.  A.  Freeman 3       Bret  Harte   1 

Thomas  Hughes   3       Brander  Matthews 2 

Grote 1       James  Bryce  2 

Browning 1       Lounsbury    7 

Maeaulay  4       Holmes 11 

Thackeray    25       Kittredge  and  Greenough 3 

Mrs.  Gaskell   .  . ' 12       G.  W.  Cable 4 

Dickens 7       William  James 1 

George  Eliot 3       J.  F.  Genung 2 

Matthew    Arnold 1       Stevenson 15 

Here  are  about  60  of  the  best  essayists,  scholars,  novelists, 
aud  historians  of  the  last  250  years  in  at  least  200  passages. 

Of  course  the  word  is  of  the  ' '  free-and-easy ' '  type ;  it  would 
hardly  be  used  in  the  most  solemn  places ;  is  rather  on  the 
colloquial  order.  The  word  is  too  commonplace  for  poetry. 
Only  one  example  in  our  list,  the  one  from  Browning,  is  taken 
from  poetry,  and  that  of  the  conversational  order,  where  a 
character  is  speaking  in  monodrama.  Then,  Browning  is  a 
"free  lance"  in  grammar,  as  we  shall  see  in  our  section  on 
the  "split  infinitive." 

This  use  of  pretty  is  strong  in  Lamb,  Mrs.  Gaskell,  Thack- 
eray, and  Stevenson.  It  is  suited  to  their  free-and-easy  style 
of  writing.  As  said  in  treating  mighty  (page  161),  words, 
even  in  literature  have  different  grades,  are  not  all  equally 
suited  to  the  high  style  or  to  sacred  discourse.  For  instance, 
a  preacher  would  hardly  say,  "The  disciples  were  pretty  glad 
when  they  saw  their  master. "  Nor  would  he  say  mighty  glad; 
though  good  old  Hugh  Latimer  might  say  either.  Yet  we 
should  cheerfully  permit  it  to  a  Stanley  or  to  the  present 


IRE  PEOGIlESSIli:  PASSIVE   VERB  PHBASE  219 

Bishop  of  Loudon:  language  "courtesies  to  great  kings"  of 
thought. 

Dean  Swift  in  the  Tatler  says,  "when  1  seemed  pretty 
much  bent  upon  going,  they  ordered  the  stable  door  to  be 
locked. ' '  Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  ' '  But  where  the  age 
and  circumstances  of  both  parties  are  pretty  much  upon  a 
level,  I  cannot  but  think  the  insisting  upon  pin-money  is  very 
extraordinary,"  and,  "We  sat  pretty  late  over  our  punch." 
Matthew  Arnold  (On  Translating  Homer)  says,  "wherever 
one  finds  such  a  theory  announced  (and  one  finds  it  pretty 
often),  it  is  generally  followed  by  an  explosion  of  pedantry." 
Macaulay  (Earl  of  Chatham)  says,  "the  other,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  a  most  respectable  specimen  of  the  young  aristoc- 
racy, and  something  of  a  virtuoso,  is  described  as  spelling 
pretty  well  for  a  lord."  Lowell  in  his  essay  On  a  Certain 
Condescension  in  Foreigners  says,  "The  Dutch  had  thriven 
under  it  pretty  well,  and  there  was  hope  that  we  could  at 
least  contrive  to  worry  along." 

The  literature  is  full  of  such  sentences. 


XCVI 

THE  PROGRESSIVE  PASSIVE  VERB  PHRASE 

Man  as  vet  is  being  made.     (Tennyson.) 

The  progressive  passive  verb  phrase  is  avoided  by  some 
excellent  speakers  and  writers.  Tliey  will  not  say  "My  book 
is  being  printed'''  but  "is  printing.''^  Yet  a  distinguished 
scholar  recently  told  the  author  of  this  volume  that  the  pro- 
gressive passive  phrase  is  too  well  established  to  need  defense. 
Is  he  not  mistaken  ?  Are  not  Richard  Grant  White 's  ^  attacks 
upon  this  phrase  still  reprinted  in  Boston  and  read  by  thou- 
sands of  earnest  people?     Do  not  many  Americans  avoid  it? 

iTTocf/.s-  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  334-3G3. 


220  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Grammarians  have  been  fighting  the  progressive  passive 
verb  phrases  for  a  long  time.  In  1857  Professor  J.  W,  Gibbs/ 
of  Yale,  published  an  article  which  he  had  had  in  his  desk 
since  1846,  in  which  he,  while  admitting  that  the  phrase  was 
"quite  common,  particularly  in  the  public  newspapers,"  raised 
several  "important  objections"  to  the  locution.  He  argued 
for  "The  house  is  'building.''  He  said  that  "The  house  is 
being  built"  is  too  formal  and  pedantic;  that  it  is  not  found 
in  the  Bible;  that  the  phrase  heing  huili  is  twisted  from  its 
proper  meaning;  and  that,  as  far  as  he  knew,  the  phrase  in 
question  did  not  have  "the  support  of  any  respectable  gram- 
marian." How  times  change!  To  us  it  seems  that  "The 
house  is  huilding''  sounds  formal  and  pedantic.  As  to  his 
second  objection :  we  do  not  expect  to  find  all  of  our  present- 
day  locutions  in  the  King  James  Bible:  that  is  a  treasure- 
house  of  old  words  and  phrases,  but  too  antiquated  in  style 
to  serve  as  an  absolute  criterion  for  modem  English.  As  to 
the  sanction  of  grammarians :  Gibbs  forgot  for  the  nonce  that 
grammarians  do  not  make  language  but  merely  record  usage. 
He  forgot  also  that  language  develops  new  locutions  as  it 
needs  them. 

In  1859  George  P.  Marsh  attacked  this  locution  in  his  Lec- 
tures on  English,  calling  it  "clumsy  and  unidiomatic."  He 
went  on  to  say  that  this  phrase  did  not  originate  in  the  com- 
mon sense  of  the  people  but  * '  in  the  brain  of  some  grammatical 
pretender."  He  argued  stoutly  for  the  form  is  making  in  the 
sentence  at  the  head  of  this  section.  A  few  years  later,  Richard 
Grant  White-  attacked  is  being  done  with  great  vehemence. 
White's  books  had  considerable  influence  and  are  still  pop- 
ular in  some  quarters.  Quackenbos,"  though  not  so  warm  as 
White,  says, '  *  It  is  at  present  more  elegant  and  more  idiomatic 
to  say,   'The  house  is  building'  than   'The  house  is  being 

1  PhUoUxjical  Studies,  p.  90. 

'  Words  and  Their  V>ics,  pp.  3.3l-.'?G3. 

^Practical  I'hrtoric,  p.  2'*.C.. 


THE  PBOGBESSIVE  PASSIVE  VERB  PHRASE  221 

built.'  "  This  statement  stands  in  his  latest  edition,  published 
in  1896.  In  1900  Genmig  ^  in  liis  school  lilietoric  said,  "Gram- 
marians prefer  is  doing,  is  building,  etc.,  when  not  ambiguous, 
to  passives  of  this  class."  In  1902  Professor  A.  S.  Hill,-  after 
giving  a  block  of  sentences  in  which  phrases  of  this  group 
occurred,  corrected  them,  and  then  made  the  following  state- 
ment :  ' '  Passive  forms  like  those  given  under  II  have  recently, 
perhaps  within  a  century,  come  into  common  use.  They  have 
been  stigmatized  as  bad  English ;  but  they  are  found  in  the 
works  of  some  good  authors,  and  they  are  occasionally  con- 
ducive to  clearness.  When,  however, .  as  in  these  examples, 
active  forms  are  so  familiar  that  they  may  be  used  without 
creating  obscurity  or  savoring  of  affectation,  they  are  preferable 
to  passive  forms;  for  they  are  less  clumsy  and  more  forcible." 
Cardinal  Newman,  it  is  said,  was  opposed  to  this  locution  all 
his  life.^  Professor  Earle,*  though  favorable  to  it  in  1871, 
was  non-committal  in  1887 ;  he  was  probably  influenced  by 
the  opinions  of  White,  George  P.  Marsh,  and  other  stu- 
dents of  English  who  were  opposed  to  it.  Let  us  see  what 
defenders  it  has  had  in  the  days  since  White  and  Marsh 
attacked  it. 

In  1864  Dean  Alf ord ^  said,  "is  so  completely  naturalized, 
that  it  would  be  vain  to  protest  against  it,  or  even  to  attempt 
to  disuse  it  one 's  self. ' '  This  shows  how  a  distinguished  Eng- 
lishman felt  in  the  '60's  of  the  last  century.  The  author's 
table  and  Fitzedward  Hall's  list  below  will  show  how  many 
great  authors  were  using  it  at  that  time. 

In  1873  Fitzedward  Hall*'  defended  the  locution  very 
stanchly.  He  criticized  Marsh  and  White  vehemently  and 
argued  that  their  hostility  to  the  phrase  was  utterly  unrea- 

^  Outlines  oj  Rhetoric,  p.  318. 

-Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  452,  4.53. 

^  See  Earle's  Philology  of  the  English  Tongue,  1887,  p.  552  and  note. 

••  Philology  of  the  English   Tongue,  p.  5r)2. 

5  The  Queen's  English,  18C0,  pp.  107,   168, 

f^  Modern  English,  pp.  321-359. 


222  STUDIES  IX  rSAGE 

sonable  and  simply  due  to  their  fear  of  innovation.  Hall, 
while  not  attempting  to  give  the  genesis  of  the  phrase,  argued 
that  it  was  needed  in  the  language  and  said  that  it  had  been 
used  by  some  of  the  best  authors  for  at  least  seventy-five 
years.    He  quotes  passages  from  the  following: 

Southey  De  Quincey 

Coleridge  Newman 

Lamb  Bishop  Wilherforce 

Shelley  Ruskin 

Landor  Freeman 

Jeremy  Bentham  Baring-Gould 

Young  Matthew  Arnold 

Dr.  Thomas  Arnold                            Huxley 

Dr.  Hall  added  that  it  was  "daily  becoming  more  and  more 
common''  and  that  "the  best  written  of  the  English  reviews, 
magazines,  and  journals  are  perpetually  marked  by  it." 
The  Century  Dictionary  says,  "Well  established  in  popular 
speech,  and  will  probably  pass  into  correct  literary  speech." 
Professor  W.  D.  Whitney  ^  in  1875  said,  "Awkward,  but  nat- 
urally formed  and  really  unavoidable." 

In  1879  Lounsbury  -  gave  the  history  of  this  passive  pro- 
gressive verb  phrase,  treating  it  as  an  established  part  of  the 
English  verb  system.  This  same  scholar  said"  in  1914  that 
the  phrase  is  perfectly  established  in  the  language.  In  1885 
Professor  W.  D.  Whitney  *  said,  ' '  These  progressive  passive 
forms  are  still  regarded  by  some  as  bad  English,  and  carefully 
avoided ;  but  they  are  also  freely  used  even  by  writers  of  the 
first  class,  especially  in  England  (less  generally  in  America)." 
In  1886  T.  L.  Kington  Oliphant '"'  said,  "the  idiom  is  now 
well  established."    In  1904  Henry  Bradley,*'  editor  of  the  New 

1  The  Life  (171(1  Growth  of  Language,  p.  102. 

-  Histor.u  of  the  English  Language,  rovisod  oditifin  (^f  ]S94.  pp.  iriO-17.'5. 

'  In  a  letter  to  tlio  author  of  tliis  ^olunlo. 

*  Essen tiala  of  English  Grammnr.  p.  12S.  fop. 

'^The  Xeir  English,  II,  1S8. 

*T7ic  Maling  of  English,  p.  TO. 


THE  PEOGEESSIVE  PASSIVE  VERB  PEBASE  223 

English  Dictionary,  said,  "The  .  .  .  passive  forms,  as  in  " the 
house  is  heing  built",  "he  was  being  taught  to  ride,"  were 
hardly  known  till  near  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
long  afterwards  they  were  condemned  by  sticklers  for  gram- 
matical correctness.    Yet  the  innovation  was  clearly  needed. 

If  any  honest  doubter  is  not  convinced  by  these  quotations 
from  several  of  the  greatest  English  scholars  of  England  and 
America,  it  is  no  doubt  useless  for  this  writer  to  argue  any 
further. 

However,  it  may  be  added  that  this  phrase  is  found  more 
or  less  frequently  in  the  following : 

Coleridge  Phillips  Brooks 

Southey  Lowell 

De  Quincey  John  Fiske 

Laudor  Tennyson 

Mrs.  Gaskell  Ernest  Rhys 

Matthew  Arnold  Churton  Collins 

Fronde  H.  W.  Mabie 

Clough  Charles  Morris 

Thackeray  Stopford  Brooke 

Dickens  G.  W.  Cable 

Huxley  T.  N.  Page 

Herbert  Spencer  Saintsbury 
Stevenson 

The  two  lists  indicate  that  the  phrase  is  used  more  by 
English  than  by  American  writers,  as  Whitney  said  in  his 
Essentials  of  English  Grammar. 

John  Fiske  uses  both  is  building  and  is  being  built.  Lowell, 
while  using  the  passive  form  occasionally,  clings  to  the  other ; 
e.g.,  "the  great  problems  .  .  .  which  were  ages  in  solving." 
Holmes  says,  "the  Battle  .  .  .  is  fighting,  and  ivas  fighting"; 
"as  if  some  game  of  life  were  quietly  plenjing." 

The  main  attacks  upon  this  locution  have  come  from  Amer- 
icans, and  these  attacks  have  no  doubt  affected  American 
writers.  Whatever  the  cause,  the  phrase  is  not  very  common 
in  the  best  American  authors. 


224  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

As  to  the  ag-e  of  this  locution.  Richard  Grant  White  ^  says 
that  it  was  first  used  in  literature  by  Robert  Southey  in  1795. 
Lounsbury  says  it  first  became  common  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  AVhite's  statement  can  now  be  amended. 
We  find  it  in  the  letters  of  John  Shillingford,  about  1447.-1448. 
He  writes,  "wyn  is  being  y  put  to  sale"  (=wine  is  being 
put  to  sale)  ;  the  phrase  occurs  twice.  Again:  in  the  Letters 
of  the  Court  of  James  I.  (1603-1615)  we  read,  "Italy  is  being 
held  dangerous."  In  17G9  one  of  Foote's  characters  says, 
"an  opera  is  being  acted."  So  that  the  phrase  was  lurking 
somewhere  in  England  for  several  hundred  years,  biding  its 
time  for  adoption.  Oliphant  says  that  it  originated  in  th6 
West  country.  This,  if  true,  will  explain  why  it  started  out  in 
standard  literature  with  Coleridge  and  Southey,  as  these  poets 
spent  a  good  deal  of  their  time  in  southwestern  England.  As 
there  were  no  "grammatical  pretenders"  in  the  West  country 
at  that  early  day,  the  statement  of  Marsh  in  an  earlier  para- 
graph may  be  disregarded. 

The  genesis  of  this  phrase  may  be  given  briefly.  It  started 
out  in  Anglo-Saxon  in  the  form  on  byldung  (=on  building), 
where  on  means  in.  This  changed  to  in  building.  Then  it 
became  a-building ,  where  a  is  a  shortened  form  of  on.  Then 
the  preposition  began  to  drop  out,  giving  the  phrase  is  build- 
ing. Meantime  is  being  built  had,  as  already  said,  made  its 
appearance  sporadically  in  the  literature. 

The  form  in  building,  etc.,  runs  through  literature  for 
centuries.  The  King  James  Bible  says,  "it  was  in  building"; 
Thomas  Gray,  "bridge  is  now  in  building"  ;  Lowell,  "problems 
ages  in  solving."  The  King  James  Bible  says,  also,  "the  ark 
.  .  .  was  a-preparing";  G.  W.  Cable,  "Gun-carriages  were 
a-making. ' ' 

For  the  next  step  we  find  Shakespeare  has,  "while  grace 
is  saying";  Milton,  "was  building";  Addison,  "was  prepar- 
ing"; Dr.  Johnson,   "were  printing."     Coleridge  says,  "a 

^  Words  and  Their  Uses,  odUlon  of  1890,  p.  n48. 


TEE  PBOGRESSir?:  PASSITE  VEBB  PHRASE  225 

wall  that  is  whitewashing"  ;  Holmes,  "is  fighting" ;  Browning, 
"hops  are  picking.'"  Certainly  tlie  language  needed  a  new 
construction  to  meet  such  cases  as  the  last  four. 

We  have  seen  two  older  forms  in  use  at  the  same  time  in 
Bible  English.  In  recent  English  we  can  show  all  three  mod- 
ern forms  in  the  same  author :  G.  W.  Cable,  in  Dr.  Sevier, 
says,  "gun-carriages  were  a-making",  "the  rams  were  build- 
ing", "big  guns  were  being  cast" — tliree  forms  in  one 
sentence. 

White  and  Hall  argued  vehemently.  One  spent  his  energies 
trying  to  show  that  is  hci»g  done  violates  logic,  analogy,  and 
precedent,  the  "parents''  of  language,  as  he  calls  them.  The 
other  argued  just  as  stoutly  that  is  being  huiU  does  not  violate 
good  sense  and  reason  and  is  not  opposed  to  "the  genius  of 
the  language."  Both  these  writers  were  on  the  wrong  track, 
groping  in  the  dark ;  language  asks  no  odds  of  either  prece- 
dent, reason,  or  analogy.  Ordinarily  she  is  guided  by  these 
gentle  maidens,  but,  when  she  is  in  a  dilemma  and  wishes  to 
get  to  some  point  as  speedily  as  possible,  she  breaks  away  from 
these  guides  and  leaves  them  gasping  behind  her.  In  this 
respect  language  can  be  compared  to  an  army.  Ordinarily  it 
moves  along  the  old  roads  that  have  been  used  for  ages.  These 
are  convenient  and  serve  for  ordinary  campaigns.  But  if  an 
emergency  arises;  if  the  enemy  is  to  be  surprised,  or  any 
sudden  coup  de  guerre  is  resolved  upon,  the  engineer  corps 
advances,  cuts  new  roads  amid  the  crash  of  falling  timber, 
and  moves  the  army  through  fields  and  pastures  never  before 
traveled  by  wheel  or  horsehoof.  Precedent,  reason,  and  anal- 
ogy are  the  "parents"  of  language  generally;  but  "necessity 
is  the  mother  of  invention"  in  language  as  in  other  matters. 

To  show  the  development  of  this  phrase  in  modern  English, 
a  few"  complete  sentences  will  be  given. 

Bishop  Latimer,  preaching  before  King  Edward  VI  in 
1550,  said,  "And  before  that  Tenterton  steeple  was  in  huild- 
ing,  there  was  no  manner  of  speaking  of  any  fiats  or  sands 


226  STUJtIKS  IN  USAGE 

that  stopped  the  haven."  The  King  James  Bible  (1611)  says, 
"And  the  house,  when  it  was  in  hiiilding,  was  built  of  stone 
made  ready  before  it  was  brought  thither";  "And  the  word 
of  the  Lord  came  to  Solomon,  saying,  Concerning  this  house 
which  thou  art  in  huilding,"  etc.;  "When  once  the  long- 
suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  wliile  the  ark 
was  a-prcparing,"  etc.  Addison  (Spectator)  says,  "While 
supper  ivas  preparing,  he  enlarged  upon  the  happiness  of  the 
neighboring  shire."  Dr.  Johnson  (Boswell's  Jo7in50»)  writes 
in  1775,  "Maps  were  printing  in  one  of  the  rooms."  Wlien 
maps  are  printing  and  walls  are  whitewashing,  the  language 
will  look  for  a  better  phrase  elsewhere  or  make  one.  The 
passive  phrase  was  coming  into  considerable  use  about  the 
time  of  Johnson  and  of  Coleridge,  but  tlie  older  ones  have 
persisted  to  the  present  time  in  standard  authors. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  the  passive  phrase  became  well 
established.  Tennyson  was  (juoted  at  the  head  of  this  sec- 
tion. Matthew  Arnold  says,  "I  am  disposed  rather  to  regard 
it  as  a  pause  in  which  the  turn  to  a  new  mode  of  spiritual 
progress  is  being  accomplished."  Froude  (Erasmus  and 
Luther)  says,  "the  mind  of  the  world  was  hcing  reformed  in 
the  best  sense  by  the  classics  of  Greece  and  Rome";  "Sir 
Richard  .  .  .  was  then  shot  through  the  body  while  his 
wounds  were  heing  dressed,  and  again  in  the  head."  (For- 
gotten Worthies.)  (But  Froude  says  in  his  essay  on  Homer, 
"in  the  distance  a  banquet  preparing  under  the  trees.")  Ste- 
venson (Travels  irith  a  Donkey)  says,  "even  in  my  great 
chamber  the  air  ivas  being  renewed  all  night  long." 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said  that,  althougli  the  passive 
phrase  is  "now  well  established,"  the  active  form  is  persisting 
both  in  literature  and  in  the  vocabulary  of  some  highly  edu- 
cated men  and  women.  To  set  a  few  earnest  seekers  after 
truth  straight  in  the  matter  is  the  object  of  this  unusually 
long  section  of  this  volume.  When  such  popular  writers  as 
Macaulay,  Carlyle,  and  Poe  say,  "His  book  was  printing," 


PEOVEN  AS  A  PAETICIPLE  227 

"a  house  preparing"",  "preparations  wei-e  nialving"',  "a  meal 
is  getting,"  the  passive  phrase  is  hardly  too  well  established 
not  to  need  some  discussion.  Probably  the  language  will  keep 
both  "is  printing"  and  "is  being  printed." 


XCVII 

PROVEN  AS  A  PAETICIPLE 

The  Century  Dictionary  says,  "an  improper  form,  lately 
growing  in  frequency."  It  quotes  Herbert  Spencer  as  using 
it.  A.  S.  Hill'  and  Genung-  condemn  it  in  their  textbooks  on 
rhetoric.  The  Standard  Dictionary  says,  "an  irregular  form, 
[used]  in  legal  phrases."  Whitney"  calls  it  "an  unsupported 
anomaly. ' ' 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant  ■*  cited  it  as  a  Northern  form  in  the  Scotch 
law  phrase  "not  proven,"  seen  about  1350. 

"Worcester  says,  ''Sometimes  proven,"  and  quotes  P.  J. 
Bailey.  The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting 
Landor,  Gladstone,  Tennyson,  and  some  minor  writers.  Web- 
ster recognizes  it,  quoting  Thackeray  and  Jowett.  The  most 
ardent  defender  of  proven  is  Professor  Lounsbury,  who 
devotes  three  pages  to  it  in  his  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  Eng- 
lish.^ He  finds  it  quite  frequently  in  Tennyson ;  also  in  Bulwer, 
Lowell,  Thackeray,  and  Herbert  Spencer.  Lounsbury  says, 
"Some  authors  of  repute  employ  it;  some  avoid  it.  .  .  .  It  is 
more  than  likely  that  it  is  destined  to  establish  itself  perma- 
nently in  the  language  of  literature."  Proven  is  used  at  least 
seven  times  in  Tennyson's  Idylls  of  the  King  and  twice  in  his 
Aylmer's  Field.  The  writer  has  seen  it  once  in  .Huxley; 
twice  in  Kipling's  serious  verse  ;  once  in  Fitz-Greene  Halleck's 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  14S. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  325. 

^  The  Life  and  Groicth  of  Language,  p.  75. 

*  The  Xeic  English,  I,  55. 

*Pp.  62-65. 


228  STuniES  IX  rsA&E 

poetry;  once  in  Miss  Katharine  Lee  Bates's  Religious  Drama. 
Huxley,  however,  generally  uses  proved. 

Of  course  prove  is  a  weak  verb  and  has  no  historical  claim, 
so  to  speak,  upon  the  -en  participle;  but  as  all  scholars  know, 
the  two  classes  have  been  shifting  a  little  for  many  centuries. 

Worcester's  statement  is  correct:  "sometimes  proven." 
Whitney's  statement,  "an  unsupported  anomaly,"  is  too 
severe.  Lounsbury  's  prophecy  is  hardly  warranted  when  only 
ten  or  twelve  cases  have  been  found  in  seventy-five  thousand 
pages  of  literature ;  but  Tennyson  uses  it  seventeen  times,  as 
the  concordance  to  his  poetry  shows.  Proved,  however,  is 
supreme'  in  the  literature  as  a  whole. 

If  one  great  author  can  establish  a  form,  Tennyson  has 
established  proven;  but  he  also  uses  proved. 

In  America,  proven  has  considerable  vogue  in  polite  society 
and  in  the  best  journals. 

Tennyson  {Gareth  and  Lynette)  says, 

Wliy,  Gawain,  when  he  came 
With  Motlred  liither  in  the  summer-time, 
Ask  Vl  me  to  tilt  witli  liim,  the  proven  Knight. 

there  be  many  who  deem  him  not, 
Or  will  not  deem  him,  wholly  proven  king. 

Not  proven,  who  swept  the  dust  of  ruin  'd  Rome 
From  off  the  threshold  of  the  realm,  eic. 

Miss  Bates  has  no  doubt  heard  proven  in  Massachusetts  all 
her  life :  the  writer  has  heard  it  in  Virginia. 

Probably  the  Scotch  law  phrase  "not  proven"  has  helped 
to  extend  the  use  of  proven;  and  this  phrase  itself  indicates 
that  the  form  is  not  a  neologism  but  has  its  roots  in  the  past. 
(See  Oliphant's  statement  above.) 

Proved  is  far  more  common  in  the  literature,  has  no  ene- 
mies, and  does  not  put  one  on  the  defensive.  Yet  we  may  feel 
that  we  do  not  like  to  part  with  proven  after  hearing  it  all  our 


QUIT  =  LEAVE,  GO  AWAY  FEOM  229 

lives  from  good  speakers  and  careful  talkers.  If  so,  we  have 
some  high  authority  to  support  us ;  but  George  Campbell 
■svould  advise  us  to  use  the  more  common  form.^ 


XCVIII 

qUlT  =  LEAVE,  GO  AWAY  FROM 

The  writer  long  had  a  prejudice  against  the  word  quit;  in 
his  mind  it  was  associated  somehow  witli  the  illiterate  or  the 
half -educated.  For  that  reason  he  watched  the  word  in  litera- 
ture and  found  that  it  has  been  in  reputable  use  for  several 
centuries.  It  was  used  frequently  by  Dr.  Jolmson  in  the 
eighteenth  century ;  by  Jane  Austen,  Bulwer,  and  Thackeray 
in  the  nineteenth.  It  is  an  exceedingly  common  word  in 
Thackeray,  could  probably  be  found  hundreds  of  times  in  his 
novels.  Macaulay,  also,  uses  it  veiy  frequently,  though  the 
writer  has  recorded  only  25  cases  of  the  word  in  his  writings. 

Quit  is  used  by  the  following  authors: 

Shakespeare    8  Boswell    9 

Sir   Thomas  Browne 2  Dr.  Johnson 14 

Massinger    1  Thomas  Warton 3 

Lord    Bacon    2  Sharon  Turner   4 

Defoe    4  Alexander  Hamilton   1 

Bishop  Burnet    5  Fielding  26 

Swift    4  Burke   1 

Addison    3  Dr.  H.  Blair 1 

Steele    1  Franklin 4 

Dryden     2  Freneau   2 

Pope   10  Cowper 1 

Prior     4  Southev    2 

Baxter    1  Byron   3 

Jeremy  Taylor   3  Coleridge   2 

Milton     2  De  Quincey   9 

'  "When  those  (the  authorities)  on  one  side  greatly  preponderate,  it  is  in 
vain  to  oppose  the  prevailing  usage."  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,  Bk.  II,  chap. 
II,  section  I. 


230 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


William  Ilazlitt 4 

Lamb    10 

Chi'istoplier  Xorth 1 

Ilallam 1 

Scott 6 

Wordsworth 9 

Jane  Austen   15 

A.  H.  Clough 3 

Cooper    5 

Emerson     6 

Fronde   1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   .'  2 

Lady  Charlotte  Guett ^ 1 

Hawthorne 10 

D.   G.   Eossetti 1 

Euskin    1 

Holmes 3 

Jean  Ingelow   4 

Douglas  Jerrold   1 

Maeaulay .25 

William  Minto   1 

D.  G.  Mitchell 1 


Matthew  Arnold 4 

Browning 7 

Carlyle   8 

Motley    2 

Newman     1 

Francis  Palgrave   1 

Poe   16 

Bayard  Taylor   2 

Dean  Trench 1 

Thackeray   44 

Sir  Henry  Taylor 5 

Stevenson     2 

John  Fiske   2 

Henry  Adams 1 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

Churton  Collins 2 

Professor  John  Earle 1 

James  Bryce 1 

Stephen   Phillips    1 

John  Tyndall    1 

Mrs.  H.  Ward 4 

W.   D.  Whitnev 1 


The  word  is  used  more  in  England  tlian  in  America :  a  care- 
ful reading  of  the  table  will  show  that  about  three-fourths  of 
the  examples  are  from  English  literature.  It  will  be  noticed, 
also,  that  the  largest  figures  are  from  English  authors.  For 
instance,  an  English  author  will  say,  "They  quit  (or  quitted) 
Rome  early  in  the  year,"  where  an  American  author  would  be 
more  likely  to  say,  "They  left  Rome." 

With  the  foregoing  list  of  more  than  70  reputable  authors 
representing  a  very  wide  use  of  qint,  we  can  no  longer  have 
a  reasonable  prejudice  against  the  word  ;  but 

A  man  convinced  against  his  will 
Is  of  his  own  ojiinion  still. 

The  following  quotations  will  show  how  quit  is  used  in  the 
literature.     Pope 's  hynni  is  familiar : 

Vital  spark  of  heav'nly  flame, 
Quit,  oh,  quit  this  mortal  frame. 


RECKON  AND  GUESS  IN  LITERATURE  231 

Burke  (Conciliation)  says,  "But  I  quit  the  vantage-ground 
on  which  I  stand,  and  where  I  might  leave  the  burthen  of  the 
proof  upon  him."  Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "The 
genius,  being  moved  with  compassion  towards  me,  bid  me  quit 
so  uncomfortable  a  prospect " ;  "I  was  forced  to  quit  my  first 
lodgings,  by  reason  of  an  officious  landlady,  that  would  be 
asking  me  eveiy  morning  how  I  had  slept."  Matthew  Arnold 
(Function  of  Criticism)  says,  "Or,  to  narrow  our  range,  and 
quit  these  considerations  of  the  general  march  of  genius  and 
of  society,"  etc.;  "its  movement  of  ideas,  by  quitting  the 
intellectual  sphere  and  rushing  furiously  into  the  political 
sphere,  ran,  indeed,  a  prodigious  and  memorable  course,"  etc. 
Macaulay  says,  ' '  Fortunately  for  himself  and  for  his  country, 
he  early  quitted  poetry,"  etc.;  "Addison,  made  a  rich  man 
by  his  pension,  and  still  retaining  his  fellowship,  quitted  his 
beloved  Oxford,  and  set  out  on  his  travels";  "Addison  was 
consequently  under  the  necessit}^  of  quitting  London  for 
Dublin." 

Quit  in  the  sense  of  cease,  stop,  is  marked  "chiefly  collo- 
quial" in  the  Century,  but  is  recognized  by  several  other  dic- 
tionaries. "To  quit  London"  is  more  literary  than  "to  quit 
smoking. ' ' 


XCIX 

RECKON  AM)  GUESS  IX  LITEEATURE 

Have  reckon  and  guess  in  the  sense  of  "think,"  etc.,  any 
literary  standing?  Or  are  they  only  provincialisms,  properly 
])lacklisted  in  all  our  sehoolbooks? 

All  of  the  "lesser  grammarians"  and  the  minor  verbalists 
condemn  them  mercilessly,  and  some  of  the  major  Avriters  of 
textbooks  and  some  of  the  lexicographers  fail  to  show  that 
they  could  possibly  be  used  in  modern  literature. 


232  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


J.     RECKON 


Webster  says,  "Provincial  English  and  colloquial  U.  S." 
This  authority  gives  no  inkling  that  the  word  lias  any  standing 
in  literature  in  the  sense  of  "think,"  "suppose."  The  Century, 
v^^iile  showing  from  the  King  James  Bible,  Dean  Swift,  Foote, 
Walter  Scott,  and  Harper's  Magazine,  that  the  word  has  been 
literary,  says  that  it  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  provincial  or 
vulgar.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionarj^  says,  "Provincial  in 
England  and  very  common  in  the  middle  and  southern  states 
of  America."  Even  Lounsbury,^  the  leader  of  our  most  chari- 
table verbal  critics,  says,  "once  literary,  which  still  remains 
common  in  the  United  States,  especially  in  the  South. ' ' 

Let  us  trace  reckon  in  the  literature.  The  earliest  case  the 
writer  has  seen  is  in  John  Bale's  God's  Promises,  written  in 
1538.  Next,  two  passages  from  the  Bible  quoted  in  the  Cen- 
tury Dictionary ;  viz.,  Isaiah  38  :  13  and  Romans  8 :  18,  which 
we  leave  the  reader  to  look  up  for  himself.  The  New  English 
Dictionary,  in  showing  the  literary  use  of  the  word,  quotes 
Joseph  Glanvill  (1636-80),  the  Bible,  Swift,  Fanny  Burney, 
Gaskell,  and  Jowett. 

An  interesting  passage  from  Swift  is  quoted  in  the  Cen- 
tury: "I  reckon  it  will  appear  to  many  as  a  very  unreason- 
able paradox."  To  this  the  writer  can  add,  "I  do  not  reckon 
that  we  want  a  genius  more  than  the  rest  of  our  neighbors." 
No  doubt  other  passages  from  Swift  could  be  produced.  A 
little  later,  we  find  it  used  by  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  in  a  letter : 
"I  reckon  George  begins  to  shew  a  pair  of  heels."  Just  at 
this  time,  Foote  was  writing  his  plays,  from  one  of  which  the 
Century  quotes  a  reckon.  About  this  same  time  Chesterfield 
uses  it  in  a  letter.  Thomas  Carlyle  says:  "In  many  intrica- 
cies Frederick  has  been ;  but  never,  I  reckon,  in  any  equal  to 
this."  (This  is  quoted  by  Professor  Lounsbury.)  Fitzed- 
ward   Hall-  puts   it   in    Our   Grandfathers'  English,   citing 

1  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  p.  32. 
^Modern  English,  p.  251,  and  note. 


BECKON  AND  GUESS  IN  LITERATURE  233 

Foote  and  Cowper  as  using  it.  Walt  Whitman  in  Leaves  of 
Grass  says,  *'I  reckon  I  behave  no  prouder  than  the  level  I 
plant  my  house  by,  after  all."  Browning  {The  Flight  of  the 
Duchess)  says. 

He  told  the  croue,  as  I  since  lune  recloned 
By  the  way  he  bent  and  spoke  into  her  ear. 

This  is  a  pretty  straight  pedigree,  all  the  way  from  Bale  to 
Browning. 

Who  does  not  respect  this  old  word  when  he  hears  from 
eloquent  lips  that  grand  sentence,  "For  I  reckon^  that  the 
sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared 
with  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in  us"?  What  hand 
will  change  that  reckon  to  any  one  of  its  supposed  equivalents? 

The  writer  does  not  deny  that  reckon  is  at  present  not  in 
good  literary  standing :  he  is  only  tracing  its  pedigree  in  lit- 
erature, bringing  it  down  from  Bale  to  Browning.  It  has  been 
shown  that  it  was  in  good  literary  standing  when  our  colonial 
sires  emigrated  from  England  and  that  they  handed  it  down 
to  their  descendants.  We  shall  close  with  a  query:  If  reckon 
is  entirely  "provincial,"  or  "colloquial  U.  S.,"  what  shall  we 
do  with  Browning?    Under  which  head  shall  we  classify  him? 

/  reckon  is  treated  separately  by  the  New  English  Dic- 
tionary, which  says,  "formerly  in  literary  English."  This 
dictionary  seems  to  regard  I  reckon  as  standing  on  a  lower 
plane  than  the  verb  reckon  in  other  collocations. 

«'.     GUESS 

GMes5=  "think,"  or  "suppose,"  like  reckon,  is  better  than 
the  textbooks  make  it.  It  is  common  in  Chaucer  and 
Wycliife ;  was  used  by  Gower,  Shakespeare,  Pope,  Sheridan, 
Southey,  and  Wordsworth,  so  that  it  had  an  unbroken  literary 

^  An  excellent  scbohir  has  suggested  that  the  Greek  word  used  by  Saint 
Paul  means  to  "calculate. "  It  did  mean  that  originallj-,  but  afterwards  meant 
"consider."  In  most  of  the  languages,  it  will  be  found  that  the  word  used  in 
translating  the  passage  is  equivalent  to  "think",  "consider." 


234  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

history  for  over  four  centuries.  The  writer  has  not  found 
any  examples  of  guess  ns  late  as  Mrs.  Gaskell,  Carlyle,  -Towett, 
and  Walt  Whitman,  who  use  reckon. 

Guess  is  not  found  in  the  Bible.  Nor  should  we  be  willing 
to  substitute  it  for  reckon  in  Isaiah  38:13  or  Ro)nans  8:18. 
It  is  distinctly  below  reckon  in  literary  value  and  seems  to 
have  lost  its  standing  in  literature  since  Shelley  and  Words- 
worth used  it.  It  would,  moreover,  be  a  safe  statement  that 
in  modern  literature  reckon  has  been  used  more  frequently 
than  guess. 

Wordsworth  in  To  Joanna,  written  in  1800.  says: 

Yet  we,  who  are  transgressors  In  this  kind, 
Dwelling  retired  in  our  simplicity 
Among  the  woods  and  fields,  we  love  you  well, 
Joanna!   and  I  guess,  since  you  have  been 
So  distant  from  us  now  for  two  long  years, 
That  you  will  gladly  listen  to  discourse. 

In  The  Recluse,  probably  written  a  few  years  L;ter  than  To 
Joanna,  Wordsworth  says : 

Conspicuous  at  the  centre  of  the  Lake 

Their  safe  retreat,  we  knew  them  well,  I  (/uess 

That  the  whole  valley  knew  them. 

Shelley  in  Adonais  (v.  31)  says, 

he,  as  I  guess, 
Had  gazed  on  Nature's  naked  loveliness 
Acteon-like. 

These  are  the  latest  eases  of  guess  the  writer  has  seen  in  the 
literature. 

Both  reckon  and  guess  are  used  so  constantly  as  hack  words 
in  the  United  States  that  they  now  stand  on  an  equality  as 
provincialisms ;  as  soon  as  we  cross  the  Potomac,  we  pass  from 
the  land  of  one  to  the  domain  of  the  other.  Northern  people 
who  use  guess  sometimes  criticize  Southern  people  for  using 
reckon.    The  writer  has  tried  to  show  that,  while  overworked 


BE  DUN  DAN  T  THAT  235 

as  localisms  and  colloquialisms,  they  have  some  literary  value 
and  some  standing  among  modern  authors,  with  a  slight  bal- 
ance on  the  side  of  reckon. 

C 
REDUNDANT' THAT 

What  we  might  call  redundant  that  is  often  heard  in  con- 
versation and  in  platform  English  and  sometimes  gets  into 
literature.  For  instance.  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  History  of 
Our  Own  Times  writes,  "And  it  was  often  said,  that  if  Crom- 
well would  have  compounded  the  matter,  and  have  given  him 
a  good  round  pension,  that  he  might  have  been  induced  to 
resign  his  title  to  him."  Here  the  second  that  is  clearly 
redundant.  Dr.  Johnson,  in  a  letter  to  Boswell  dated  Dec.  7, 
1782,  uses  the  same  construction.  Thomas  Paine  uses  it  at 
least  four  times.  Eecent  cases  are  seen  in  the  writings  of  a 
prominent  English  ecclesiastic.  Prebendary  C.  A.  Row:  in 
Isaac  D 'Israeli,  and  in  Phillips  Brooks.  There  are  two  cases 
of  this  that  in  Anglo-kSaxon  literature,  one  in  the  Chronicle 
and  the  otlier  in  the  prose  Legend  of  »S7.  Aiidrew.  It  occurs 
in  Malory  also. 

Dr.  Johnson  in  a  letter  to  Boswell  says,  ' '  You  do  not,  since 
now  you  are  tlie  head  of  your  house,  think  it  worth  your  while 
to  try  whether  you  or  your  friend  can  live  longer  without  writ- 
ing, nor  suspect  that  after  so  many  years  of  friendship  that 
when  I  do  not  write  to  you,  I  forget  a^ou."  Isaac  D 'Israeli 
says:  "It  is  hardly  credible,  that  on  the  first  introduction 
of  the  Chinese  leaf,  which  now  affords  our  daily  refreshment ; 
or  the  American  leaf,  whose  sedative  fumes  made  it  so  long  a 
universal  favorite ;  or  the  Arabian  berry,  whose  aroma  ex- 
liilarates  its  European  votaries;  that  the  use  of  those  harm- 
less novelties  should  have  spread   consternation,"  etc.     The 

*  Not  the  same  construction  called  by  this  name  in  Abbott's  Shakespearian 
Cframmar. 


236  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

distinguished  Phillips  Brooks  uses  this  that  more  than  once  in 
his  published  addresses:  "Shall  I  believe  that  until  he  comes 
to  a  change  of  his  opinions  and  recognizes  that  there  is  indeed 
a  ruling  love,  a  great  and  fatherly  God  for  all  the  world,  that 
he  has  nothing  to  do  with  that  God?"  The  last  italicized  that 
recapitulates  the  first. 

The  psychology  of  the  redundant  that  is  very  simple :  it  is 
the  desire  of  the  writer  or  of  the  speaker  to  recapitulate,  to 
renew  the  connection  between  the  clause  introduced  by  that 
(but  interrupted  by  intervening  words)  and  the  main  element 
of  the  sentence.  The  that  under  discussion,  then,  might  be 
called  the  resumptive  or  recapitulative  that. 

It  may  be  added  that  scholars  have  noticed  that  the  syntax 
of  English  has  a  "short  span",  "short  reach,"  or  "short 
circuit"  and  needs  words  of  recapitulation  more  than  other 
languages.  Under  this  same  head  we  might  put  the  Pleonastic 
Pronoun,  treated  in  a  previous  section  of  this  volume. 

The  that  under  discussion  is  common  in  the  pulpit,  on  the 
platform,  and  in  conversation,  but  rare  in  literature.  The 
Avriter  is  not  arguing  for  this  construction :  on  the  contrary, 
he  thinks  that  it  mars  the  beauty  of  a  sentence.  Having  often 
heard  this  that  used  by  well  educated  people  and  seen  it  fre- 
quently in  reputable  papers,  he  was  interested  to  find  it 
occurring  sporadically  in  the  literature. 

CI 

THE  RELATIVE  THAT  BEFORE  A  PAUSE 

An  expression  that,  thoii<)li  intelligible,  is  no  lonijcr  employed  in  ordi- 
nary unemotional  discourse.      (J.  F.  Gcnuuff.) 

The  use  of  that  before  a  pause  is  condemned  by  some  high 
authorities.  Henry  Sweet  ^  says:  "As  it  {i.e.,  that)  is  always 
pronounced  with  a  weak  vowel,  it  cannot  take  stress,   and 

1  New  English  Grammar,  §  2128. 


THE  RELATIVE  THAT  BEFOEE  A  PAUSE  237 

hence  cannot  be  followed  by  a  pause.  Tims  we  could  not  sub- 
stitute it  for  icho  in  "he  is  a  man  who,  if  .  .  ."  Is  this  rule 
based  upon  a  study  of  the  literature? 

Genung^  takes  the  same  position.  He  quotes  approvingly 
from  some  writer:  ''That  is  not  a  good  word  to  pause  upon; 
when  therefore  it  comes  just  at  a  pause  icJw  or  ivhkh  will 
often  sound  better.  Example. — There  are  many  persons  that 
(better  who),  though  unscrupulous,  are  commonly  good-tem- 
pered, and  that  (better  irho),  if  not  strongly  incited  by  self- 
interest,  are  ready  for  the  most  part  to  think  of  the  interest 
of  their  neighbors." 

That  tlK^se  canons  are  not  based  upon  the  usage  of  good 
writers  will  appear  from  tlie  table  appended.  ^Meantime  let 
us  Cjuote  a  few  passages  from  Genung's  college  textbooks: 
''habits  that,  far  from  eclipsing  any  mental  talent,  make  all 
the  writer's  gifts  more  assured  and  self-perfecting";-  "some 
thoughts  that,  reasoned  out,  would  have  comparatively  little 
effect,  might  appeal  strongly  to  the  imagination";'  "there 
must  necessarily  remain  a  great  deal  that,  in  spite  of  the 
utmost  skill,  cannot  be  adequateh  reproduced  in  another  lan- 
guage."* These  are  but  a  fraction  of  the  passages  that  might 
be  found  in  Genung's  volumes.  We  quote  them  to  show  that 
the  rule  is  so  strict  that  good  writers  like  Genung  are  not 
bound  by  them. 

The  M'riter  has  recorded  the  following  passages  in  which 
the  relative  that  is  used  before  a  pause: 

John  Lyly 3  Burke    4 

Bacon   5  John  Adams    1 

Jolin  Webster   1  Hazlitt    2 

Bishop  Burnet    1  Coleridge    1 

Eichard  Steele    1  Wordsworth 2 

Dr.  Johnson    3  Lamb    2 

1  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  94. 
'Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  232. 
^Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  289. 
*  Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  320. 


238                                      STUniFS  IN  USAGE 

ClnistoiiluM-  North 1       Loiinsbury    1 

Scott     2       Stephen  Phillips 1 

Prescott   1       Katharine  Lee  Bates 2 

Trench    1       William  Minto   1 

Cooper    n       Tennyson    G 

Holmes 1       Browning 3 

Bulwer   1       D.  G.  Eossetti 1 

Poe   1       G.  W.  Cable 2 

Beaconsfield 1       Carlyle   1 

De  Quineey   12       Sir  Henry  Taylor 1 

George  Eliot   2       T.  N.  Page 2 

Provide   1       J.  F.  Genun-r 16 

Morris    2       Stovonson 1 


Here  we  liave  38  reputable  authors  from  Elizabethau  times 
to  the  present. 

An  interesting  fact  is  that  Genung  is  the  worst  violator  of 
his  own  canon ;  but  this  does  not  injure  his  standing  as  a 
writer,  since  his  practice  conforms  with  that  of  many  standard 
authors. 

A  point  wortli  mentioning  is  that  the  conjunction'  that  is 
very  often  used  before  a  pause  in  literature  and  by  public 
speakers.  Would  not  the  objections  made  to  the  relative  hold 
good  against  the  conjunction  ?  Yet  the  latter  is  not  questioned 
by  rhetorical  scholars  and  grammarians. 

Let  us  quote  a  few  passages  from  the  literature. 

Dr.  Johnson  (Life  of  Shakespeare)  says,  "He  that,  without 
diminution  of  any  other  excellence,  shall  preserve  all  the 
unities  unbroken,"  etc.  In  this  sentence.  Dr.  Johnson  uses 
this  interdicted  that  and  uses  it  where  Sweet  intimates  it 
would  be  intolerable.  De  Quineey  uses  it  pretty  frequently. 
He  says  (A  Sketch  from  Childhood) ,  "The  Jews  that,  in  the 
twenty-eighth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  were  cursed  in  a 
certain  contingency,"  etc.;  ''murders  that,  many  centuries 
after  all  the  parties  to  them — perpetrators,  sufferers,  aveng- 
ers— had  become  dust  and  ashes,"  etc.  Froude  (Words 
abovt  Oxford)  says,  "it  is  the  connexion  of  the  foundation 


HE  LI  ABLE  239 

with  the  history  of  man — witlithc  names  that,  like  the  flowers 
called  'immortals,'  bloom,"  etc.  Carlyle  {Heroes  and  Hero 
Worship)  says,  "Is  it  not  strange  that,  after  all  the  moun- 
tains of  calumny  this  man  has  been  subject  to?"  etc.  Burke 
says  {Conciliation),  "for  the  sake  of  the  weighty  instruc- 
tion tJiat,  I  flatter  myself,  will  necessarily  result  from  it"; 
"at  the  very  time  that,  by  your  conquests  in  America,  your 
danger  from  foreign  attempts  in  that  part  of  the  world  was 
much  lessened, ' '  etc.    Browning  says  ( The  King  and  the  Book ) , 

The  wilding  flo-n-er-tree-branch  that,  all  those  years, 
She  had  got  used  to  feel  for  and  find  fixed. 

The  true  son-servant  that,  when  parent  bids 
"Go  work,  son,  in  my  vineyard,"  makes  reply 
' '  I  go,  sir !  " 

The  writer  can  see  no  valid  objection  to  that  before  a  pause. 


CII 

RELIABLE 

The  word  reliable  has  been  fought  over  a  long  time.  In  the 
'60 's  of  the  last  century,  Dean  Alford,^  in  England,  and 
Richard  Grant  White,-  in  America,  condemned  the  word ;  the 
former,  rather  mildly;  the  latter,  vehemently.  White  and 
others  of  his  school  argue  that  the  verb  is  rely  upon,  and  not 
rely,  and  that  consequently  the  suffix  -aUe  should  not  be 
added  to  the  verb  to  form  an  adjective.  William  Cullen 
Bryant  took  his  stand  with  tliese  verbalists  and  gave  instruc- 
tions that  reliaUe  should  not  be  used  in  the  columns  of  his 
paper,  the  New  York  Evening  Post.  George  P.  Marsh  con- 
demned it  though  using  it  occasionally,  Genung^  gives  it  a 
half-hearted  welcome,  saying,  ' '  It  has  made  a  place  for  itself 

1  The  Queen's  English,  1866,  p.  253. 

2  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  220-229. 
^Outlines  of  nhetoric,  1900,  p.  326. 


240  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

in  usage,  though  careful  writers  generally  prefer  trustworthy." 
Could  this  statement  be  substantiated  by  a  study  of  the 
literature  ? 

In  1867  W.  1).  Whitney^  discussed  tlie  word  reliable.  He 
does  not  commit  himself  as  to  its  propriety,  but  shows  that  it 
might  be  given  a  trial.  He  says  that  it  is  "shut  out  from  the 
best — or,  at  least,  from  the  most  exclusive — society  in  English 
speech."  He  shows,  however,  that  the  language  has  formed 
laughable,  unaccountable,  indispensable  and  others  on  the 
same  basis  as  reliable,  and  that  any  objection  valid  against  the 
last-named  would  hold  good  against  the  others.  So  that 
Whitney,  while  rather  non-committal,  really  gave  the  word  a 
helping  hand  just  at  the  time  when  men  like  Alford  and  White 
were  either  opposing  it  or  questioning  it  seriously.  A  few 
years  later,  Fitzedward  Hall  ~  defended  reliable  and  named  a 
large  number  of  reputable  writers  that  used  it,  among  them : 

Coleridge  George  P.  Marsh 

J.  S.  Mill  Gladstone 

Dickens  James  Martineau 

Charles  Reade  G.  O.  Trevelyan 

A.  Trollope  Monier  Williams 

Bagehot  Leslie  Stephen 

Harriet  Martineau  Saintsbury 

Newman  Henry  Sweet 

Irving  Thomas  Arnold 

Daniel  Webster  Edward  Everett 

Since  that  time,  the  word  has  steadily  risen  in  favor.  The 
Century  Dictionary  defends  it,  but  says  that  it  is  shunned  by 
many  fastidious  writers.  It  quotes  passages  from  Coleridge, 
Irving,  Gladstone,  J.  H.  Newman,  J.  S.  Mill,  and  Leslie 
Stephen,  a  strong  sextette  of  authorities.  Webster  defends  it, 
quoting  some  of  the  same,  and  also  Martineau.  Stormonth 
recognizes  it.    Worcester  recognizes  it,  quoting  three  authors 

>  Language  and  the  Study  of  Language,  pp.  40,  41.    , 
-  Modern  English,  pp.  320,  348. 


RELIABLE  241 

and  periodicals.  One  of  the  stanchest  defenders  of  the  word 
is  Lounsbiiry.^  He  says  that,  wliile  Coleridge  introduced  the 
word  into  good  society,  it  was  already  in  the  language.  He- 
good  naturedly  twits  those  who  will  use  laugltahJc,  available, 
and  indispensable,  and  yet  refuse  to  tolerate  reliable,  which, 
he  says,  belongs  to  the  same  category.  Canby  and  four  other 
Yale  professors  of  English-  use  it  at  least  four  times  in  a 
textbook  on  rhetoric.  0.  F.  Emerson  uses  it.  The  Rev.  W.  W. 
Skeat,  though  very  warm  on  some  other  points  of  usage,  uses 
reliable  and  defends^  it  strenuously  "against  many  frivolous 
and  ignorant  objections."  (Skeat  is  always  plain-spoken.) 
The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  reliable,  quoting 
Irving,  Gladstone,  Trevelyan,  and  some  others  not  so  well 
known.  The  last-named  dictionary  says,  ' '  Comparatively  new 
word,  sometimes  called  an  Americanism."  Walter  Bagehot, 
Dickens,  and  George  P.  ]\Iarsh  use  it. 

Besides  the  support  of  the  authors  cited  above  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  verbalists,  scholars,  and  lexicographers,  the  word 
has  the  imprimatur  of  polite  society  and  of  many  reputable 
speakers. 

Jesperseu,*  the  Danish  scholar,  says,  "it  is  difficult  to  see 
why  reliable  should  be  the  most  abused  word  of  the  English 
language.  It  is  certainly  formed  in  accordance  with  the  fun- 
damental laws  of  the  language ;  it  is  short  and  unambiguous, 
and  what  more  should  be  needed?"  He  goes  on  to  show  that 
it  was  in  reputable  use  as  early  as  1624,  and  quotes  Fitzed- 
ward  Hall  as  proving  that  it  had  been  in  standard  literature 
for  over  a  hundred  years.  He  also  says  that  trusfworthij  is 
much  less  euphonious  than  reliable. 

The  writer  may  add  that,  while  he  has  seen  few  cases  of 

reliable  in  this  course  of  reading,  he  has  also  seen  very  few 

cases  of  trustworthy. 

1-Tlic  standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  196,  107. 

-English  Composition  in  TJiconj  and  Practice. 

^Students'  Pastime,  p.  xvil. 

*  Growth  and  .•structure  of  the  English  Language,  pp.  108,  109. 


242  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Professor  0.  F.  Emerson  says,  "Thus  from  seven  to  ten 
divisions  are  made  by  different  scholars,  the  most  rcliahle 
authority  at  present  phieing  the  number  at  eight."  Five 
English  scholars  of  Yale  ^  in  a  textbook  on  composition  say, 
"If  he  is  reliable,  you  can  include  his  statements,  and  your 
opponents  will  have  to  respect  them ;  if  he  is  not  reliable,  you 
must  omit  the  whole  thing  from  your  brief  and  argument ' ' ; 
"Now  where  there  is  only  one  cause  and  one  effect,  this  argu- 
ment is  simple  and  reliablf";  "If  you  have  analyzed  all  the 
points  in  your  brief  under  these  heads  and  found  them  reli- 
able, you  may  feel  reasonably  certain  that  the  framework  of 
your  argument  is  sound.-" 

For  the  benefit  of  readers  who  prefer  quotations  from 
stylists  rather  than  from  scholars  like  Emerson,  Skeat,  and 
other  specialists,  we  borrow  the  following  sentence  from  the 
dictionaries:  Newman  says,  "She  (the  Church)  has  now  a 
direct  command,  and  a  reliahlc  influence,  over  her  own  insti- 
tutions, which  was  wanting  in  the  middle  ages."  {Lectures 
on  Universit])  Subjects.) 

The  Century  in  defining  dependable,  itself  as  vulnerable  as 
the  word  under  discussion,  uses  reliable.  Both  of  them  are 
offensive  to  some,  though  they  have  the  sanction  of  some 
eminent  writers. 


cm 

EEMEMBER  OF 

In  Henry  VIII.,  Shakespeare  says,  "I  remember  of  such  a 
time."  The  phrase  in  italics  is  condemned  as  a  vulgarism 
by  A.  S.  Hill  in  his  school  Rhetoric.-  Carlyle,  in  a  letter  to 
Emerson,  speaking  of  Webster,  says,  "I  have  not  traced  as 
much  of  silent  Berserker-rage,  that  I  remember  of  in  any  other 

1  Canby  and  others  :  Enflliifi  Compo.tition  in  Theory  and  Practice. 
^ Beginninns  of  Rhcfuriv  and  Compo.'<ition,  p.  "04. 


BESUBEECT  243 

man."    Of  course  we  cannot  depend  too  much  upon  Carlyle, 
as  he,  to  some  extent,  made  his  own  dialect — "Carlylese." 

The  phrase  under  discussion  is  out  of  date  now:  it  is 
noticed  here  only  because  it  was  seen  in  three  eminent  authors 
and  is  heard  occasionally  in  polite  society. 


CIY 

RESURRECT 

The  verb  resurrect  is  denounced  so  vehemently  in  most  of 
the  textbooks  and  dictionaries  that  one  would  hardly  expect 
to  find  it  in  the  literature.  It  is  condemned  by  A.  S.  Hill/ 
Genung,-  the  Standard  Dictionary,  Webster's  International, 
and  the  Century,  not  to  speak  of  vehement  verbalists  without 
number. 

The  Oxford  Dictionary,  however,  speaks  a  good  word  for  it, 
explaining  its  origin  and  quoting  Benhani,  Thomas  H.  Ben- 
ton, Hawthorne,  and  Mrs.  Oliphant  as  using  it.  The  Ency- 
clopedic Dictionaiy  recognizes  it,  quoting  a  passage  from  John 
Burroughs.  "Webster's  Secondary  School  Dictionary',  a  recent 
book,  recognizes  it. 

The  present  writer  has  seen  the  word  in  the  writings  or 
speeches  of  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Professor  F.  L.  Pattee,  and 
Professor  "W.  M.  Baskervill,  the  two  last-named  being  well- 
known  English  scholars. 

Wliile  not  recommending  the  word,  the  writer  may  say  that 
it  is  an  analogical  fonnation  from  resurrection,  what  is  called 
a  "back-formation,"  just  as  beg  was  formed  from  beggar. 
Again :  it  would  be  a  useful  word  in  the  language.  For 
instance,  suppose  some  adverse  critic  of  this  volume  wished  to 
say,  "This  man  is  trying  to  resurrect  some  dead  words  and 
phrases,"   but   did   not  wish   to   use   resurrect.      If  he   said 

1  Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Compoaition,  p.  235. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  S2T. 


244  STUDIES  IX  VSAGE 

revive,  his  remark  would  lose  a  good  deal  of  its  pungency,  as 
resurrect  has  the  idea  of  wakening  the  dead  with  a  loud  blast 
of  the  last  trump,  while  revive  would  convey  the  innocent 
idea  of  pouring  a  little  water  on  a  fainting  lady's  face.  In 
other  words,  it  tells  how  the  speaker  feels  about  the  subject 
under  discussion. 

The  word  is  used  by  Professor  F.  L.  Pattee  in  his  edition 
of  Freneau's  Poems:  "He  (the  author)  resurrected  none  of 
the  material  dropped  from  the  1795  collection,"  etc.  John 
Burroughs  says,  "The  centre,  where  the  sportsman  lies  en- 
tombed, to  be  quickly  resurrected  when  the  game  appears." 

With  the  imprimatur  of  the  great  Oxford  Dictionary,  of 
Webster's  recent  imprint,  of  Hawthorne,  John  Burroughs, 
and  several  of  our  best  minor  writers,  tlie  word  resurrect 
should  certainly  not  be  stigmatized. 

Its  congener  resurrectionist  seems  to  have  no  enemies,  prob- 
ably because  it  fills  a  definite  place  in  the  language  not 
occupied  by  any  other  word. 


CY 
EETAINED  OBJECT 

At  a  shrine  about  Canterbury  he  was  shown  an  ohl  rIwc  which  tradi- 
tion called  the  saint's.     (J.  A.  Froude.) 

What  is  the  syntax  of  shoe  in  the  sentence  above  ?  Several 
of  the  best  grammarians  call  it  "the  retained  object";  the 
great  German  grammarian  Matzner^  calls  it  "the  object  of 
the  thing  with  the  passive." 

Quackenbos,-  speaking  of  tliis  construction,  says,  "protested 
against  by  all  who  respect  pure  English."  (See  the  authors 
below  who  do  not  respect  pure  English.)  Sweet  says,  "We 
hesitate  over  and  try  to  evade  such  constructions."    There  is 

^English  Orammar  (Grece's  translation),   IT,  212-214. 
^Practical  Rhetoric,  189G,  p.  242. 


BETAINED  OBJECT  245 

a  feeling  among  good  teachers  that  a  passive  verb  cannot 
possibly  take  an  object. 

In  connection  with  our  last  statement,  George  i\  Marsli,' 
one  of  the  pioneers  of  English  study  in  America,  says,  "Such 
combinations  as  'He  was  given  a  commission  in  a  new  regi- 
ment' are  employed  by  some  of  the  best  writers  of  the  present 
day,  as  well  as  by  those  of  an  earlier  period.  .  .  .  They  make 
the  language  not  less  intelligible,  but  less  artistic ;  less  poetical, 
but  not  less  practical,  and  they  are  therefore  fully  in  accord- 
ance with  those  undefined  tendencies  which  constitute  the 
present  drift  of  the  English  language." 

Matzner  discusses  the  syntax  of  the  noun  after  a  passive 
verb.  He  cites  passages  from  Shakespeare,  the  Earl  of 
Chatham,  I\Iilton,  Goldsmith,  Fielding,  Sheridan,  Douglas 
Jerrold,  Coleridge,  Macaulay,  and  Bulwer.  More  recent  gram- 
marians who  recognize  and  parse  it  are  E.  A.  Abbott,-  Jesper- 
sen,^  Carpenter,*  Nesfield,^  Baskervill  and  Sewell,**  Kittredge 
and  Farley.'^  They  recognize  not  only  the  noun  but  the  infini- 
tive ;  e.g.,  He  was  taught  to  dance. 

Lounsbury^  defends  this  construction  valiantly.  He  says 
that  it  made  its  appearance  in  the  language  in  the  twelfth 
century  and  names  the  following  authorities  in  which  this 
object  is  found : 


Eichard  Eolle  de  Hampole 

Bacon 

Sir  Amadas 

Ben  Jonson 

Coventry  Mysteries 

Fletcher 

Paston  Letters 

Milton 

Blackstone 

Dryden 

Spenser 

Swift 

Shakespeare 

Addison 

1  Lectures  on  the  Eti(jlinli  Luuguaije,  p.  246. 

-  How  to  Parse,  p.  91. 

"  Progress  in  Langucuje,  p.  2o2. 

*  Principles  of  Emjllsli    Grnmmar,  p.   17(1. 

^- Eufjlish   Grammar  Past  and  Present,  p.   Zi'i. 

•■•  Enr/lish  Grammar,  p.  242. 

'Advanced  EiKjtisli  Grammar,  p.  112. 

•"'  The  standard  of  Usayc  in  EiujJish,  pp.  IToflf. 


246 


STUDIES  IX  USAGE 


Steele 

Pope 

Gray 

Fielding 

Richardson 

Smollett 

Iluino 

Gibbon 

Burke 

Goldsmith 

Dr.  Johnson 

Cowper 

Crabbe 

Wordsworth 

Byron 

Scott 

Jane  Austen 


Coleridge 

Southey 

Irving 

Carlyle 

Macaulay 

Dickens 

Thackeray 

George  Eliot 

Hawthorne 

Tennyson 

Matthew  Arnold 

Ruskiu 

Disraeli 

Browning 

Froude 

Emerson 

Stevenson 


The  writer  has  seen  the  followino-  cases 


Hugh  Latimer 2 

Shakespeare     2 

Jeremy  Taylor   3 

Pepys   1 

Pope  1 

Goldsmith    2 

Dr.  Johnson    10 

Christopher  North   1 

Byron , 1 

Macaulay 12 


CoAvper 

Hallam 

Milman 

Audubon    

T.   N.   Talfourd.  .  . 
Thomas  Campbell 

Poe  

Bulwer   

Sir  John  Ijubbock. 


Mrs.  Gaskell    1 

Encyclopedia  Britannica    1 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 1 

Lowell    5 

John  Fiske   15 

S.  Baring-Gould 6 

J.  A.   Froude 1 

T.  N.  Page 2 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

O.  F.  Emerson 2 

J.  M.  Barrie 1 

Lounsbury   1 

Stevenson  4 

Ernest  Rhys   1 

Sir  Henry  Taylor 3 

John  Earle    1 

Freeman     .3 

Huxley   2 

Holmes 1 


Here  are  ahout  SO  antliorities  in  all,  besides  others  known 
to  Professor  Lonnsbury. 


RETAINED  OBJECT  247 

This  object  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  English  language. 
IMarsli  says  it  is  regarded  by  foreigners  as  a  monstrosity ;  yet 
he  himself  declares  that  it  is  fully  in  accordance  Avith  the 
"genius"  of  modern  English.  Why  do  the  purists  attack  it? 
Simply  because  it  baffles  their  grammatical  perception;  they 
think  that  everything  must  lend  itself  to  parsing,  as  if  English 
were  not  filled  up  with  constructions  that  cannot  and  will  not 
be  parsed,  but  arc  labeled  idioms  and  irregularities  by  the 
great  grammarians.  "I  was  denied  access  to  the  king"; 
"he  was  refused  admission";  "we  were  taught  music"; 
"we  are  told  ihat  the  earth  is  round" — these  are  but  a 
fraction  of  the  familiar  locutions  that  "the  lesser  gram- 
marians" and  the  purists  would  banish  from  the  language. 
As  already  said,  the  greater  grammarians  call  this  noun 
either  "retained  object"  or  "object  of  the  thing  after  a 
passive  verb. ' '  The  fact  is  there ;  the  name  is  a  secondary 
matter. 

Whatever  we  may  call  this  noun,  it  certainly  enriches  the 
language.  Some  object  to  the  name  "retained  object"  on  the 
ground  that  the  noun  was  not  always  the  object  when  the 
sentence  was  in  the  active  form  and  hence  should  not  be  called 
"retained"  when  the  sentence  is  passive  in  construction.  This 
is  true  in  some  eases ;  but  in  all  the  phrases  cited  in  the  fore- 
going paragraph  the  nouns  were  objects  of  the  active  verb. 
"He  refused  me  admission,"  when  put  in  the  passive  form, 
becomes,  "I  was  refused  admission  by  him."  What  shall  we 
call  admission  in  the  second  sentence?  Some  purists  say  that 
the  second,  sentence  is  not  good  English ;  and  therefore  not  to 
be  noticed  by  the  grammarian.  But  that  objection  has  been 
silenced  if  the  opinions  of  eminent  scholars  and  the  usage  of 
distinguished  authors  are  to  be  considered.  Matzner's  nomen- 
clature is  certainly  good,  but  rather  cumbrous  for  the  school- 
room: "object  of  the  thing  with  the  passive."  Why  not 
abridge  that  into  "Passive  Object"?  This  would  look  well  in 
our  textbooks  along  with  Direct  Object,  Indirect  Object,  Cog- 


248  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

nate  Object,  etc.,  and  would  pacify  those  who  do  not  like 
"I'etained  object." 

We  need  not  notice  the  fact  that  foreigners  call  this  object 
a  monstrosity.  It  is  a  part  of  our  language.  It  was  evolved 
by  our  language  centuries  ago  and  is  deeply  imbedded  in 
colloquial,  platform,  and  written  English.  It  is  no  more 
peculiar  or  idiomatic  than  many  locutions  found  by  us  when 
we  study  foreign  languages.  Nor  is  it  more  idiomatic  than 
some  other  English  constructions  or  usages  to  which  no 
objection  is  ever  made. 

Probably  the  most  common  form  of  this  passive  object  is 
the  noun  clause  after  am  told,  was  told,  etc.;  e.g.,  "I  am  told 
that  you  have  changed  your  politics."  Sentences  like  this  are 
found  on  every  page  of  our  literature. 

A  few  examples  may  be  given. 

Pope  says, 

A  face  untaught  to  feign;  a  judging  eye, 
That  darts  severe  upon  a  rising  lie. 

Dr.  Johnson  in  Rassclas  uses  this  object  at  least  nine  times. 
He  says,  "By  degrees  the  royal  wanderers  were  taught  to 
understand  that  they  had  for  a  time  laid  aside  their  dignity"; 
"we  .  .  .  were  offered  such  refreshments  as  our  masters  were 
partaking."  Jeremy  Taylor  in  a  sermon  says,  "then  also 
He  entered  into  a  cloud,  and  was  told  a  sad  story  what  He 
was  to  suffer  at  Jerusalem."  Macaulay  says,  "We  are  told 
that,  while  still  a  mere  child,  he  stole  away  from  his  play- 
fellows to  a  vault  in  St.  James's  Fields."  (Clause  object.) 
"The  natives  had  been  taught  that  France  was  confessedly 
the  first  power  in  Europe."     (Clause  object  again.) 

Who  would  hesitate  to  say,  "I  am  told  that  Mexico  wishes 
to  be  annexed,  but  she  should  be  denied  admission"? 


EIGHT  AS  AN  ADFEBB  249 

CVI 
RIGHT  AS  AN  ADVERB 

Of  his  person  and  stature  was  the  king 
A  man  right  manly  strong.     (Eossetti.) 

The  use  of  right  modifying  an  adjective  is  called  a  pro- 
vincialism by  Quackenbos,  A.  S.  Hill,  and  Genung  in  their 
textbooks.  Does  this  include  the  literary  use  of  the  phrase, 
as  in  the  type-sentence  from  Rossetti  ?  Or  does  it  mean  only 
the  colloquial,  "I  am  right  glad  to  hear  that'"? 

Right  has  been  modifying  adjectives  for  five  hundred  years. 
It  is  common  in  Chaucer,  the  Miracle  Plays,  and  Malory.  It 
is  strong  in  Shakespeare,  Carlyle,  Kingsley,  and  William 
Morris,  besides  occurring  here  and  there  in  many  other 
authorities.  It  is  recognized  by  the  Century  Dictionary, 
which  quotes  from  the  Merlin  and  from  Milton.  Webster, 
after  quoting  passages  from  Chaucer,  Tyndale,  and  Shake- 
speare, says,  "now  chiefly  prefixed  to  titles,"  The  Encyclo- 
pedic Dictionary,  after  quoting  from  the  Bible,  says,  "little 
used  except  in  titles."  The  Standard  says,  "archaic  or  col- 
loquial except  in  some  titles ;  as,  Right  Reverend."  Worcester 
says,  = ' '  very. ' '  The  New  English  Dictionary  says, ' '  archaic, ' ' 
and  quotes  Gray,  Coleridge,  Disraeli,  Thoreau,  and  Edward 
Fitzgerald. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  passages : 

Malory   33  Prior 1 

John  Bale    3  Coleridge   1 

Latimer    3  Wordswortli 1 

Heywood    1  Scott     3 

John  Foxe  1  Christopher    North 1 

Shakespeare 15  Hawthorne 1 

Prayer  Book   3  Landor   1 

Two   Noble   Kinsmen 2  Thackeray    1 

King  James  Bible 1  Carlyle    15 


250  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Kingsley    10       Andrew  Lang   5 

Tennyson   8       Swinburne    6 

Edward   Fitzgerald 1       Browning     1 

J.  E.  Lowell 1       Bossetti    1 

Morris 15       Stevenson    2 

Macanlay  1       Heni'y  van  Dyke 1 

Sidney  Lanier 1       Price  Collier 1 

Edwin  Arnold 1       Phillips    Brooks 1 

Quaekenbos,  though  calling  it  a  provincialism  of  the  South 
and  the  East,  says  that  it  is  as  old  as  the  English  language, 
and  that  it  is  found  in  Chaucer  and  Mandeville.  We  have 
traced  it  from  Maloiy  to  the  present ;  when  did  it  become 
provincial  ?  That  it  is  colloquial  in  some  sections  cannot  be 
doubted.  It  is  also  archaic  and  for  this  reason  is,  as  the  table 
shows,  used  by  poets  and  by  such  prose  writers  as  are  ad- 
dicted to  the  use  of  archaic  words.  Then  we  come  to  standard 
phrases,  such  as  ^^ Right  Reverend",  ^' Right  Honorable", 
and  "Right  Worshipful,"  recognized  by  the  dictionaries. 
There  still  remain  some  prose  authors  of  the  modern  period 
and  of  the  present  day  not  addicted  to  archaisms.  It  may  be 
well  to  quote  a  few  passages  from  well  known  authors  of  the 
various  classes  just  mentioned.  Tennyson  {Lancelot  and 
Elaine)  says, 

wit  ye  well,  my  child, 

Bight  fain  were  I  to  learn  this  Knight  were  whole, 

Being   our   greatest. 

Lowell  {The  Vision  of  Sir  Lannfal)  says. 

We    sit   in   the    warm    shade    and    feel   right    well 
How   the   sap   creeps   up   and   the   blossoms    swell. 

Browning  {The  Ring  and  the  Book)  says. 

There's  a  sors,  there's  a  right  Virgilian  dip. 

Carlyle  says  {Heroes  and  Hero  Worship),  "A  right  valiant, 
true  old  race  of  men";  and  "I  suppose  the  right  good  fighter 
was  oftenest  also  the  right  good  forest-feller, — the  right  good 


SAVE  AND  SAVING  +  NOMINATIVE  CASE  251 

improver,  diseeriier,  doer,  and  worker  in  every  kind,"  Chris- 
topher North  {Dryden  on  Chaucer)  says,  "All  this  intricate 
oniination  conies  forcibly  ont  in  the  sequence  of  events;  and 
is  in  itself,  as  you  feel,  at  all  events,  right  classical."  Robert 
Louis  Stevenson  (Kichutpiocd)  says,  "I  was  right  glad  when 
Alan  returned";  and  "It  was  altogether  a  right  pleasant  sight 
to  me." 

The  colloquial  right  glad  and  the  literary-  right  glad  are  not 
incompatible,  but  help  to  show  that  a  word  can  have  two 
values  at  one  and  the  same  time. 


CVII 

SAVE  J. YD  SAVING  -L-  XOMIXATIYE  CASE 

All  the  conspirators  save  only  he.      (Shakespeare.) 
None  dare  enter  save  Sir  Eobert  and  he.     (Eingsleij.) 

The  nominative  case  occurs  quite  frequently  after  save  and 
saving.  The  authorities  differ  as  to  whether  save  in  such 
cases  is  a  preposition,  a  conjunction,  or  an  old  absolute  j^ar- 
ticiple.  Baskervill  and  Sewell^  say  that  save  is  sometimes 
used- as  a  preposition  with  the  nominative,  and  quote  from 
Byron:  "None,  save  thou  and  thine,  I've  sworn,"  etc.  Matz- 
ner-  in  commenting  upon  this  same  sentence  from  Byron, 
says  that  this  passage  shows  how  save,  like  hut,  "gives  up  the 
immediate  relation  to  the  following  case."  He  treats  save 
as  a  preposition.  Nesfield'  parses  save  in  the  same  manner, 
quoting  from  the  King  James  Bible,  Byron,  and  Shakespeare. 
Kellner*  says,  "the  particles  l)ut  and  save  are  sometimes 
used  governing  an  oblique  case,  and  sometimes  with  the  nom- 
inative."   In  the  latter  construction  he  prefers  to  treat  them 

1  English   Grammar,  p.  283. 

-English  Grammar  (Grece's  translation),  II,  4G8. 
'•'■English  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  pp.  208,  4G7. 
*  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Sijntax,  pp.  130,  268. 


252  STUDIES  IX  rSAGE 

rather  as  conjunctions  than  as  prepositions.  Tlie  Century 
Dictionary  gives  one  example  each  from  the  Bible  and  Shake- 
speare but  treats  both  save  and  saving  as  conjunctions.  The 
New  Enji'lish  Dictionary  calls  save  a  (luasi-preposition  fthe 
nominative.  It  adds:  "Apparently  the  normal  construc- 
tion." It  quotes  Chaucer,  Lydgate,  Tindale,  Shakespeare, 
Milton,  Byron,  and  others  as  using  save  I,  save  he,  etc.  This 
dictionary  says  that  saving  xnih  the  nominative  is  obsolete, 
quoting  Tindale  and  Spenser.  The  latest  cases  of  saving  + 
nominative  seen  by  the  author  are  in  the  Bible  and  Edmund 
Spenser,  but  sai'e  +  nominative  is  still  alive  in  the  language. 

Save  he  is  found  in  Chaucer.  /Save  +  nominative  is  found 
from  Chaucer  to  the  present.  The  following  cases  have  been 
seen  in  the  present  course  of  reading : 

Save  I  in  Shakespeare  and  Byron. 

Save  thou  in  the  Chester  Plays. 

Save  he  in  Chaucer,  Shakespeare,  and  Kingsley. 

Saving  he  in  King  James  Bible  and  in  Spenser. 
These  phrases,  while  found  to  some  extent  in  the  literature, 
are  archaic  and  are  not  heard  in  the  spoken  English  of  the 
educated  classes. 

Byron  in  the  Isles  of  Greece  says, 

Place  me  on  Sunium's  marbled  steep, 
Whore  nothing,  save  the  waves  and  I, 
May  hear  our  mutual  murmurs  sweep. 

C.  B.  Fallen  (Meaning  of  the  Idylls  of  the  King)  says, 
"None  may  pass  into  the  spiritual  house,  wherein  the  Holy 
Grail  abides,  save  he  who  is  panoplied  in  the  armor  of  faith." 

>Sffli'e  + nominative  is  rarer  than  &w^  + nominative.  (See 
pp.  44 ff.,  above.) 


SCOUR  =  SEABCn,  RANGE  OVEB  253 

CVIII 

SCOUR  =  SEARCir,  KAXGE  OVER 
Camilla  scours  the  plain.      (Pope.) 
From  rear  to  van  they  scour  about  the  plains.     (Keats.) 

Scour  in  the  meaning  of  "search"  i^ found  in  the  .literature 
and  heard  in  the  old  states.  The  writer 's  interest  in  the  locu- 
tion was  greatly  increased  by  his  being  laughingly  twitted  in 
a  university  lecture-room  for  saying,  "I  scoured  the  whole 
library. ' ' 

This  use  of  scour  is  recognized  by  the  Centuiy  Dictionary, 
quoting  Pope  and  Franklin.  Webster  recognizes  it,  quoting 
the  same  passage  from  Pope.  The  Encyclopedic  Dictionary 
recognizes  it,  with  a  passage  from  Scott.  The  Standard, 
Worcester,  and  Oxford  dictionaries  recognize  it,  with  quota- 
tions from  the  literature.  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant^  cites  a  ease  in 
the  literature  of  about  1575,  from  a  book  written  by  John 
Hooker,  a  noted  antiquary,  and  the  uncle  of  Richard  Hooker. 

The  writer  has  collected  the  following  passages : 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher 1  Emerson    

Milton    2  Thomas  Campbell    

Dryden   1  Thackeray    

Pope  1  T.  B.  Aldrieh 

Dr.  Johnson 1  George  William  Curtis 

Franklin    1  D.  G.  Mitchell 

Lamb    1  Bryant   

Southey    1  Longfellow    

Keats    1  Edwin  Arnold 2 

This  use  of  scour  was  brought  from  England  in  the  days  of 
Milton,  Dryden,  Pope,  Johnson,  etc.,  and  handed  down  in  the 
old  states.  That  accounts  for  its  being  used  by  Franklin,  Bry- 
ant, Aldrieh,  and  other  Americans  in  their  books  and  by  edu- 
cated people  in  conversation. 

^  The  Xeu-  Enrjlish,  I,  o92. 


254  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

This  word  has  been  confused  with  scour  in  the  phrase  ''scour 
the  floor. "  It  is  probably  the  same  word  as  that  used  by  Mac- 
beth when  he  cries,  " skirr  the  country  round,"  and  probably 
goes  back  to  discourrioiiris,  used  by  John  Barbour,  the 
Scottish  poet,  in  the  sense  of  "scouts",  "ran<i'ers,"  and  found 
in  Piers  PUnvmmi  and  other  old  monuments  as  late  as  Foxe's 
Book  of  Martyrs. 

Scour  is  a  useful  word,  and  also  supported  by  high  authority 
in  literature.  It  sometimes  means  ' '  search  ",  "  ransack, ' '  as  in 
the  phrase  "scour  the  library."  But  what  other  word  would 
take  its  place  in  Pope's  "Camilla  scours  the  plain"?  No  one 
would  substitute  "range  over."  "Fly  rapidly  over"  might 
convey  the  idea  but  would  be  too  cumbersome. 

Dr.  Johnson,  in  a  letter  to  Boswell,  says,  "If  you  will  come 
to  me,  you  must  come  very  quickly ;  and  even  then  I  know  not 
but  we  may  scoiir  the  country  together,"  etc. 

Milton  {Paradise  Lost,  II,  633)  says, 

sometimes 
He  scours  the  right-hand  coast,  sometimes  the  left. 

Again  {Paradise  Lost,  VI,  529)  : 

others  from  the  dawning  hills 
Looked  round,  and  scouts  each  coast  light-armed  scour, 
Each  quarter,  to  descry  the  distant  foe. 

Charles  Lamb  in  his  last  essay  says,  "Half  a  hundred  horse- 
men, with  thrice  the  number  of  dogs,  scour  the  country  in  pur- 
suit of  puss  across  three  counties. ' '  William  Cullen  Bryant  in 
his  translation  of  the  Iliad  (VI,  481)  says, 

Then  valiant  Menelaus  took  alive 
Adrastus,  whose  two  coursers,  as  they  scoured 
The  plain  in  terror,  struck  against  a  branch 
Of  tamarisk,  etc. 

Is  it  at  all  strange  that  this  locution  survives  in  some  of  the 
old  commonwealths?  The  writer  has  heard  it  all  his  life  in 
one  or  more  of  them. 


SICK  AND  SICKNESS  255 

CIX 
SETTLE  AN  ACCOyNT 

In  Words  and  Their  Uses,  Kichard  Grant  White  (pp.  191, 
192)  criticizes  W.  D.  Howells  for  using  the  phrase  "settle 
for  the  wine."  He  then  goes  on  to  say  in  a  tone  of  ridicule 
that  this  use  of  settle  should  be  left  to  the  "sable  messengers 
that  call  the  passengers  'to  step  up  to  the  cap'n's  office  and 
settle.'  "  Hart  and  Genung  in  their  popular  textbooks  have 
continued  to  set  many  earnest  students  and  readers  against 
this  locution.  According  to  these  three,  we  cannot  "settle 
an  account",  "settle  a  bill,"  etc. 

These  phrases  are  recognized  by  Webster's  International, 
the  Century,  Worcester,  the  Encyclopedic,  and  the  New  Eng- 
lish dictionaries,  the  last  named  quoting  Foote,  Thackeray, 
and  others. 

Mrs.  Gaskell  in  Cr  an  ford  ^  says,  "I  went  over  from  Drumble 
once  a  quarter  at  least,  to  settle  the  accounts,  and  see  after  the 
necessary  business  letters. ' ' 

Here  we  have  three  verbalists  and  professors  of  rhetoric 
against  the  phrase ;  five  dictionaries  and  four  reputable  authors 
for  it. 

Polite  colloquial  usage  favors  it  considerably. 

cx 

SICK  ANB  SICKNESS 

These  words  have  had  a  peculiar  history.  After  they  had 
been  used  by  all  classes  for  centuries,  they  were  ostracized 
from  good  society  in  England  and  in  parts  of  the  United 
States,  so  that  now  they  need  valiant  defenders. 

»  Chapter  S.Y. 


256  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

T.  L.  K,  Oliphaiit/  the  noted  scholar,  stigmatized  sick  in 
1886,  saying,  "is  now  confined  to  the  sea  and  to  Americans."' 
Few  scholars,  however,  attack  the  word;  most  of  them  use 
it  in  their  books. 

Richard  Grant  White,-  in  1867,  defended  the  word  stoutly. 
He  says :  ''Sick  and  III  are  two  other  words  that  have  been  per- 
verted in  general  British  usage.  .  .  .  They  (British  speakers 
and  writers)  sneer  at  us  for  not  joining  in  the  robbery  and  the 
imposition."  White  cites  Arnold's  The  Sick  King  in  Bokhara 
and  a  passage  from  that  poem ;  also  the  locutions  sick  hcd  and 
sick  leave.  He  might  have  added  sick  hay  (U.  S.  Navy), 
lovesick,  homesick,  etc.,  and  might  have  quoted  practically 
every  author  of  any  note  from  Anglo-Saxon  days  to  the 
moment  he  was  writing.  W.  J.  Rolfe,  the  noted  Shakespearean 
scholar,  in  his  edition  of  Julius  Caesar,^  in  commenting  upon 
the  word  sick  in  Portia's  question,  "Is  Brutus  sick?"  quotes 
from  Richard  Grant  White:  ''For  sick,  the  correct  English 
adjective  to  express  all  degrees  of  suffering  from  disease,  and 
which  is  universally  used  in  the  Bible  and  by  Shakespeare, 
the  Englishman  of  Great  Britain  has  poorly  substituted  the 
adverb  ill"  Rolfe,  in  approving  the  opinion  of  White,  dif- 
fers with  many  educated  people  in  his  native  New  Eng- 
land. (It  may  he  added  here  that  the  literature  of 
New  England  is  full  of  examples  of  this  use  of  sick;  see 
below. ) 

The  Standard  Dictionary,  after  defining  sick  as  "affected 
with  disease,  ill,  ailing,"  says,  "the  prevailing  use  in  the 
United  States  and  formerly  in  England."  Webster  in  1913 
says,  "affected  with  disease,"  etc.,  and  adds,  "In  Great  Britain 
usage  now  tends  to  confine  sick  to  tlie  sense  of  'nauseated.'  " 
The  Century  Dictionary  is  on  the  same  side,  and  quotes  pas- 
sages from  the  Merlin,  Latimer,  Shakespeare,  the  King  James 

»  The  2iev)  English,  II,  26. 

-  Words  and  Their  Uses,  pp.  19(i,  197. 

*  See  notes  to  his  Julius  Caesar,  old  edition,  p.  149. 


SICK  AND  SICKNESS  257 

Bible,  Pope,  and  Teiuiysoii.  The  Ceiitiiry  goes  on  to  say, 
''There  has  been  some  tendency  in  England  to  confine  sick 
to  the  distinctive  sense  of  "nauseated,"  but  in  America  the 
word  has  continued  to  have  its  original  breadth  of  mean- 
ing, as  found  in  the  Bible  and  in  Shakespeare."  The  Ency- 
clopedic Dictionary  is  on  the  same  side  and  quotes  a  passage 
from  Pope.  Worcester  says,  "Afflicted  with  disease;  ill  in 
health ;  sickly ;  affected  with  nausea, ' '  this  last  being  one  of 
the  meanings,  not  the  only  meaning.  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionaiy  says,  "Now  chiefly  literary  and  U.  S."  This  does 
not  tally  with  Oliphant  "s  statement,  ' '  Confined  to  the  sea  and 
to  Americans."  The  New  English  Dictionary,  however,  rec- 
ognizes the  literary  standing  of  the  word  which  the  present 
section  aims  to  prove,  incidentally  showing  that  the  expul- 
sion of  sick  from  polite  society  in  England  and  in  parts  of 
America  is  utterly  unwarranted :  literary  standing  gives  social 
standing  to  a  word. 

The  word  sick  in  its  wnde  meaning  is  as  old  as  the  language. 
It  is  very  common  in  Anglo-Saxon ;  comes  down  through 
Chaucer  and  Malory  to  modern  English.  As  seen  already, 
it  is  familiar  to  every  reader  of  Shakespeare  and  of  Bible 
English.  From  the  days  of  James  I  to  the  present  it  has 
been  one  of  the  most  frequent  words  in  both  colloquial  and 
literary  English.  The  recent  objection  to  it  is  absolutely 
unaccountable  and  absolutely  unreasonable — linguistic 
squeamishness. 

The  writer  became  physically  exhausted  from  recording  the 
passages  in  which  sick  was  used ;  the  following  figures  are  but 
a  fraction  of  the  number  that  might  have  been  noted.  For 
instance,  Cruden  in  his  concordance  to  the  Bible  gives  about 
seventy-five  cases  of  sick;  it  is  almost  certain  that  there  are 
several  hundred.  In  Shakespeare  the  figures  in  the  table  below 
might  be  immensely  increased.  In  Jeremy  Taylor's  chapters 
on  sickness  and  death,  the  words  sick  and  sickness  occur  about 
fifty  times  in  a  few  pages.     In  the  Prayer  Book  the  writer 


258 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


counted  foHy-two  in  a  few  slioi-t  readings  and  could  have  run 
the  number  vip  many-fokh^ 

The  following  figures  are  only  partial: 

Malory   20 

Latimer    8 

Bible    75 

John  Bale   1 

Shakespeare 63 

Thomas  Nash   5 

Thomas  Fuller   1 

Ben  Jonson 1 

Sidney    1 

Thomas  Saekville 3 

William  Drummond  1 

Bacon 7 

Massinger    3 

John  Donne 4 

Sir  Thos.  Browne 5 

Rolls  House  MSS 3 

Two   Noble   Kinsmen 3 

John  Webster 9 

Marlowe 3 

Prayer  Booki 42 

Bunyan    1 

Clarendon     1 

Milton    1 

Jeremy  Taylor  - 7G 

Robert  Herrick 2 

Defoe   ••,.••.:■ ^ 

Dryden  .  .  .  .V 3 

John  Evelyn   1 

Richard  Baxter    4 

Addison    5 

Steele   .■ .  4 

Bishop  Burnet 5 

Swift    3 

Prior 7 

Pope  1 


Dr.   Johnson    43 

Boswell 6 

Gibbon   2 

Burke   2 

Goldsmith    2 

Thomas  Wartou 1 

Cowper    6 

Blake   1 

Paley    1 

Lamb    21 

Wordsworth 7 

Byron   1 

Scott 5 

Freneau    4 

Keats    8 

Jane  Austen    1 

Mrs.  Anna  Jameson 1 

Poe  1 

Hallam   1 

Hawthorne 9 

Pollok     3 

Keble    5 

Kingsley    5 

Matthew  Arnold 9 

Carlyle   5 

Dean  Trench  7 

Froude    14 

Dickens    2 

F.  W.  Faber 1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   2 

Walt  Whitman   1 

Lowell    1 

Dean  Stanley    4 

Morris 22 

Motley    5 


'The  writer  rocords  cases  seen  in  reading;  he  does  not  look  for  a  word. 
-These  figures  could  be  increased  ad  infinitum  by   further  reading  in  these 
treasures  of  good  English. 


SICE  AND  SICKNESS  259 

Bryant 2  Frederic   Harrison 2 

Macaulay  10  Katharine  Lee  Bates 1 

Cooper 1  F.  T.  Palgrave 2 

Holmes  11  Thomas  Hood .   1 

Lanier    2  George  Eliot   7 

Bret  Harte 7  W.  E.  Henley 1 

Dean  Alford  1  Mrs.  H.  Ward 8 

D.   G.  Eossetti 3  Brander  Matthews 3 

R.  H.  Stoddard 1  Phillips  Brooks 3 

D.  G.  Mitchell 8  Swinburne 4 

A.  H.  Clough 4  Freeman 13 

Mrs.  Browning   1  Stopford  Brooke    1 

Robert  Browning   11  G.  K.  Chesterton 2 

Tennyson   41  Henry  van  Dyke 2 

J.  K.  Hosmer 1  Edwin  Arnold 6 

T.  N.  Page 3  Stevenson 17 

Here  we  have  102  authorities  and  about  700  passages. 

The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  opposition.  By  all  the 
lexicographers  and  all  through  the  literature,  "nauseated," 
"inclined  to  vomit,"  is  only  one  meaning  of  the  word.  Those 
who  call  this  a  nautical  term  or  an  Americanism  must  show 
when  the  word  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  supreme 
tribunal,  the  great  authors. 

The  word  "ill"  is  veiy  rare  in  literature.  It  seems  strange 
that  a  word  used  so  very  frequently  in  polite  collocpiial  Eng- 
lish in  England  and  in  parts  of  America  should  be  so  rare  in 
the  literature ;  but  it  goes  to  prove  that  affectations  and 
"fads"  are  so  unnatural  that  serious  writers  will  not  tolerate 
them.  A  man  who  has  seen  sick  and  sickness  in  all  the  great 
authors,  heard  it  in  the  public  reading  of  the  Bible  from  his 
childhood,  read  it  in  his  Prayer  Book,  and  heard  it  in  a  hun- 
dred other  solemn  places,  is  not  likely  to  drop  it  when  he 
enters  authorship.  Though  avoided  by  many  educated  people 
of  New  England,  there  is  little  doubt  that  nine-tenths  of  the 
best  authors  of  that  section  use  the  word  in  its  broad  meaning. 

Are  we  ever  consistent  in  our  prejudices  against  words  and 
phrases?    If  sick  is  the  wrong  word  for  polite  colloquial  and 


260  STUniFS  IX  USAGE 

platform  English,  is  it  not  wrong  in  more  solemn  places?  And 
yet  who  in  either  England  or  New  England  would  change 
sick  to  ill  in  the  standard  Bible ?  "Lazarus  is  ilV^ ;  "I  was  ill 
and  in  prison  and  ye  visited  me."  Who  would  advocate  such 
changes?  So  in  the  Prayer  Book:  "Visitation  of  the  iW; 
prayer  for  an  ill  person :  prayer  for  an  ill  child — who  would 
suggest  these  changes ?  Or  take  the  marriage  ceremony :  "in 
illness  and  in  health,  for  better,  for  worse,  for  richer,  for 
poorer."  But  Ave  shall  not  carry  our  reductio  ad  aisurdum 
any  farther.  Suffice  to  say  that  the  word  sick  in  its  wide  sense 
permeates  the  whole  literature  from  Ca^dmon  to  Kipling. 

This  is  one  of  the  few  matters  in  which  this  writer  can  agree 
with  "White.  On  one  point  White,  however,  is  in  error:  he 
says,  "Almost  all  British  speakers  and  writers  limit  the  mean- 
ing of  sick  to  the  expression  of  qualmishness,  sickness  at  the 
stomach,"  etc.  ...  As  to  the  writers  he  is  certainly  mistaken, 
as  has  been  shown  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs  and  in  the 
table  of  statistics. 

As  already  indicated,  the  enemies  of  sick  do  not  agree. 
Oliphant  says,  "Confined  to  the  sea  and  to  Americans";  the 
New  English  Dictionary,  "Now  chiefly  literary  and  U.  S." 
Both  agree  that  sick  is  an  Americanism,  but  as  to  the  rest  they 
differ  widely.  One  says  that  it  is  used  only  at  sea ;  the  other, 
that  it  is  used  in  literature. 

As  the  editors  of  some  of  the  great  dictionaries  say  that 
in  England  sick  is  confined  to  nausea,  we  will  quote  some  pas- 
sages from  recent  literature  to  refute  their  statements. 
Matthew  Arnold  in  his  Pagan  and  Christian  Religious  Sen- 
timent has  the  passage:  "of  light-hearted  people,  like  Gorgo 
and  Praxinoe,  whose  moral  nature  is  much  of  the  same  calibre 
as  that  of  Phillina  in  Goethe's  WilJielm  Meister,  people  who 
seem  never  made  to  be  serious,  never  made  to  be  sick  or  sorry. 
And,  if  they  happen  to  be  sick  or  sorry,  what  will  they  do 
then?  .  .  :  Phillina,  within  the  enchanted  bounds  of  Goethe's 
novel,  Gorgo  and  Praxinoe,  within  the  enchanted  bounds  of 


SICK  AND  SICKNESS  261 

Theocritus 's  poem,  never  will  be  sick  and  sorry,  never  can  be 
sick  and  sorry.  The  ideal,  cheerful,  sensuous  pagan  life  is  not 
sick  or  sorry."  Try  either  "ill"  or  "nauseated"  in  that 
passage. 

Matthew  Arnold  by  himself  ought  to  be  sufficient.  Francis 
T.  Palgrave  is  recent ;  let  us  quote  him  next :  in  his  Litany 
we  read, 

In   the  blindness   of   youth, 

In  sickness  and  health, 
In  the  time   of  trial. 
In  the  time  of  "n-ealth, 

Macaulay  says,  ' '  It  was  a  crime  in  a  child  to  read  by  the  bed- 
side of  a  sick  parent  one  of  those  beautiful  collects  which  had 
soothed  the  griefs  of  forty  generations  of  Christians."  Lowell 
says,  ' '  If  he  were  sick  and  you  visited  him,  if  he  had  met  with 
a  misfortune  ...  it  was  all  one,"  etc.  Motley  says,  "This 
scene  of  honest  pathos  terminated,  the  necessaiy  measures  for 
distributing  the  food  and  for  relieving  the  sick  were  taken  by 
the  magistracy."  Ruskin  says,  "They  (doctors),  on  the 
whole,  desire  to  cure  the  sick,"  etc.  Froude  says,  "Light  in 
ballast  and  short  of  water,  with  half  his  men  disabled  by 
sickness,  Howard  was  unable  to  pursue.  ...  Of  her  crew  of 
190,  ninety  were  sick  on  shore."  Were  these  seamen  all 
nauseated  ? 

It  would  be  impossible  to  quote  a  hundredth  part  of  the 
passages  teeming  with  sick  and  sickness. 


262  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXI 

THE  SINGULAR  ADJECTIVE  AS  A  SUBSTANTIVE 

So  am  I  as  the  rich,  whose  blessed  key 

Can  bring  him  to  his  sweet  up-locked  treasure. 

(Sluikcspeare :  Sonnet  52.) 

Three  gifts  the  dying  left  me. 
.    {Mrs,  Browning :     Sonnet  to  memory  of  11.  S.  Boyd.) 

The  use  of  the  singular  adjective  as  a  substantive  is  familiar 
to  students  of  Anglo-Saxon  and  of  German  but  has  become 
rare  in  modern  English.  It  continued  through  Middle  Eng- 
lish, especially  in  poetry,  but  almost  disappeared  in  the  Tudor 
period.  The  Bible  translators,  however,  used  it  pretty  freely 
and  it  is  found  quite  frequently  in  the  Prayer  Book  Psalter, 
Of  recent  writers  William  Cullen  Bryant  is  the  only  one,  as 
far  as  the  writer  knows,  to  use  it  often. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  eases : 

King  James  Bible 36  Bryant    21 

Prayer  Booki    17  Shelley  1 

Shakespeare 2  Carlyle    3 

Jeremy  Taylor   2  Phoebe  Cary 3 

Dryden  2  Alice  Cary 2 

Southey    1  London  Times 1 

Poe  -     5  George  Eliot   1 

Mrs.  Browning   1  Emerson   4 

Robert  Browning 1  Bayard  Taylor   4 

Tennyson   4  Longfellow    1 

Hallam  1  Stephen  Phillips 1 

Stephen  Phillips  in  Orestes  says, 

Lo!  the  dead 
Cries  out  before  me  in  the  linderworld. 

The  advanced  student  will  enjoy  Kellner's  treatment  of  this 
old  Germanic  construction,  now  almost  extinct  in  English.^ 

*  Very  numerous  in  the  Psalter. 

-  All  in  his  prose. 

3  See  his  Hintorical  UutUiien  of  EiujUsh  iSyntax,  §§  238-241. 


THE  SINGULAR  ADJECTIVE  AS  A  SUBSTANTIVE       263 

The  writer  was  interested  to  see  this  old  construction  in  a 
recent  issue  of  the  London  Times.  It  is  not  likely  that  we 
shall  see  it  revived  to  any  great  extent,  but  it  is  well' to  bring 
it  to  the  attention  of  students  and  readers  who  have  seen  it  in 
books  but  did  not  understand  it. 

The  dropping  of  this  adjective  is  one  of  the  numerous 
changes  in  English  due  to  the  loss  of  inflections.  The  German 
can  still  use  it  because  its  article  and  its  adjective  are  inflected ; 
in  English,  the  dead  is  usually  understood  as  a  plural,  but  in 
earlier  English  the  inflections  showed  the  number. 

It  should  be  said  that,  like  other  archaisms,  this  construc- 
tion will  be  used  chiefly  by  the  poets:  and  this  the  table 
indicates. 

Bryant  uses  it  very  often  : 

'Twas  there  he  smote  Eetion,  yet  forebore 
To    make   his    arms   a   spoil;    he   dared   not    that, 
But  burned  the  dead  with  his  bright  armor  on. 

Give  place  to  me,  and  let  the  mules  pass  on, 
And  ye  may  weep  your  fill,  when  once  the  dead 
Is  laid  within   the  palace.      (Iliad.) 

Dryden's  passage  is  familiar  to  all : 

None  but  the  brave  deserves  tlic  fair. 

Carlyle  in  Sartor  Resartus  says,  ' '  0,  the  vast,  gloomy  solitary 
Golgotha,  and  Mill  of  Death !  Why  ivas  the  Living  banished 
thither  companionless,  conscious?"  "Why  seek  ye  the  living 
among  the  dead  ? "  is  a  great  sentence  which  may  have  influ- 
enced Carlyle.  And  how  could  that  sentence  be  written  in  our 
present  English  without  marring  its  cadence  and  beauty? 

The  most  recent  case  of  singular  adjective  as  substantive 
that  the  writer  has  seen  in  standard  prose  is  in  Adam  Beds: 
"performing  the  initial  duties  to  her  dead  with  the  awe  and 
exactitude  that  belong  to  religious  rites." 

Is  not  this  a  loss  to  the  language?  We  see  it  sporadically 
in  writers  of  the  present  day. 


264  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXII 

SIT  OR  SET 
1    .   ' 

Do  clothes  sit  or  set?  Among  the  masses,  including  those 
engaged  in  fitting  clothes  for  either  sex,  set  is  practically  uni- 
versal. Even  with  the  better  educated  classes  set  is  very  com- 
mon. A.  S.  Hill  ^  says,  ' '  Though  set  is  common,  at  least  col- 
loquially, .  .  .  sit  is  preferable:  a  garment  sits  well  or  ill." 
The  dictionaries  are  all  on  the  side  of  sits.  The  Encyclopedic 
Dictionary  quotes  a  passage  from  Shakespeare;  the  Century 
quotes  Shakespeare  and  George  Eliot;  the  New  English  Dic- 
tionary quotes  authors  of  various  periods. 

The  present  writer  has  recorded  the  following  passages 
among  others  :   Chaucer  says, 

But  Lord!  the  perrie  (=  jewelry)  and  the  richesse 
I  saugh  sitting  on  this  goddesse. 

In  Gawaine  and  the  Green  Knight,  a  knight's  clothes  ''sit 
on  him  semly  (=  seemly)."  Scott  says,  '*To  make  the  jacket 
sit  yet  more  close  to  the  body,"  etc.  Poe  says,  "coats  and 
pantaloons  of  black  or  brown,  made  to  sit  comfortably,  with 
white  cravats,"  etc.  In  Bret  Ilarte  we  find  "a  hat  sat/'  In 
Dickens  "Mr.  Trabb's  (the  tailor's)  local  work  would  have  sat 
more  gracefully."  George  Eliot  says,  "a  woman  whose  skirt 
sat  well." 

Set  is  found  occasionally  in  literature ;  the  only  cases  seen 
in  this  course  of  reading  are  in  Dickens's  Tale  of  Two  Cities 
and  a  letter  of  John  Adams  to  Jefi'erson. 

Though  the  words  under  discussion  are  rare  in  literature  for 
obvious  reasons,  a  few  more  passages  are  available.  Bret 
Harte  in  his  John.  Burns  says. 

He  wore  a  hrond-brimmed,  bell-crowned  hat, 

White  as  the  locks  on  which  it  sat. 

^ Bcfjinniiias  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  148,  149. 


SIT  OB  SET  265 

Addison  says,  "our  maimers  sit  more  loose  upon  us."  Shake- 
speare says,  "where  sits  the  wind?''  Professor  Whitney 
speaks  of  a  host  of  "new  words  on  which  their  old  apparatus 
of  inflection  sat  strangely."  Overwhelming  literary  usage  is 
in  favor  of  sit ;  colloquial  usage  is  in  favor  of  set,  except  in 
some  very  careful  circles. 

All  tailors  and  clothiers  probably  say  set:  "Your  coat  sets 
well ' ' ;  but  the  standard  authors  and  great  books  say  sit. 


Do  hens  sit  or  set  ?  This  is  ^i  burning  question  in  the  school- 
room. The  student  hears  setting  hen  all  around  him  in  most 
parts  of  the  English  world,  and  finds  it  hard  to  believe  that  it 
has  little  or  no  standing  in  literature. 

A  distinguished  authority  for  setting  hen  is  the  eminent 
philologist  George  P.  Marsh,  one  of  the  pioneers  of  English 
studies  in  America.  In  his  Lectures  on  the  English  Language 
he  uses  this  locution,  much  to  the  sui*prise  of  Professor  Louns- 
bury,  who  cannot  understand  how  such  an  error  could  have 
slipped  into  such  a  man's  vocabulary. 

The  dictionaries  and  the  grammars  are  nearly  all  in  favor 
of  the  sitting  fou'l.  Several  of  them  quote  from  the  Bible 
{Jer.  17,  11),  "As  the  partridge  sittcth  on  eggs  and  hatcheth 
them,"  etc.  Thomas  More  says,  "hens  do  not  s't  and  hatch 
them."    Tennyson  {Balin  and  BaJan)  says, 

The    ■n-liite    swan-mother,    sitting,    when    she    hears 
A  strange  knee  rustle  thro'  her  secret  reeds. 

George  W.  Cable  says,  "The  .  .  .  wren  sung  to  his  sitting 
wife. ' '    The  word  is  not  common  in  the  literature. 

One  of  our  school  textbooks  argues  for  the  setting  hen  on 
the  ground  of  popular  usage.  Would  not  this  argument  apply 
to  clothes  also  ?  If  "popular  talk"  is  to  be  our  guide,  we  shall 
have  confusion  M'orse  confounded. 


266  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

A  fact  worth  mentioning  in  this  connection  is  that  in  the 
Anglo-Saxon  period  sit  (sittan)  meant  sit,  stay,  remain, 
continue,  reside:  "they  sat  on  their  knees"  would  be  good 
Anglo-Saxon;  also  "the  soldiers  sat  around  the  city";  i.e., 
besieged  it. 

CXIII 
THE  SPLIT  INFINITIVE 

Shall  an  adverb  ever  be  put  between  to  and  the  other  part 
of  the  infinitive  ?  Is  it  permissible  to  say  ' '  to  rapidly  run, ' ' 
"to  diligently  study"?  This  is  a  "burning  question"  and 
one  on  which  verbalists  differ.  Let  us  quote  some  on  each 
side. 

Dean  Alford,^  in  186-1,  said,  "surely  this  is  a  practice 
entirely  unknown  to  English  speakers  and  r/riters."  At  this 
very  moment  Dean  Alford  could  have  found  the  split  infini- 
tive in  the  writings  of  Dickens,  Matthew  Arnold,  Mrs.  Gaskell, 
Browning,  George  Eliot,  of  his  own  day ;  Bums,  Byron,  Cole- 
ridge, Goldsmith,  and  others  of  earlier  periods.  The  Rev. 
W.  W.  Skeat,-  an  eminent  scholar  of  our  day,  calls  it  "the  bar- 
barous practice."  Five  English  professors  of  Yale,^  in  a 
recent  chapter  on  usage,  warn  against  it  but  say  that  it  is 
used  by  a  great  many  careful  writers.  Genung  in  his  school 
Rhetoric  *  calls  it  "a  vulgarism" ;  condemns  it  in  his  Practical 
Rhetoric,'^  but  is  more  tolerant  in  his  most  recent  work*  on 
rhetoric.  A.  S.  Hill^  (1902)  says  that  usage  is  divided,  but 
that  the  weight  of  really  good  authority  is  in  favor  of  not 
splitting  the  infinitive.  This  is  true ;  the  split  infinitive  is  very 
rare  as  compared  with  the  other.    Quackenbos  says,  "not  only 

1  The  Queen's  English,  1866,  p.  188. 
=  See  his  edition  of  the  Uoun  of  Fame,  p.  112. 

^English  Composition  in  Thcorii  and  rracticc,  by  Canby  and  Others,  p.  133. 
*  Outlines,  p.  72;  Practical  Rhetoric,  p.   116;  WorMtiff  Principles  of  Rhet- 
oric, p.  2.30. 

^Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  292-295. 


TEE  SPLIT  INFINITIVE  2G7 

cstlietically  ugly  but  also  an  offense  against  philology."    These 
statements  sound  plausible  but  cannot  be  proved. 

In  1893,  this  locution  found  a  sturdy  advocate  in  Dr.  Fitz- 
edward  Hall/  who  defended  it  stoutly,  though  candidly  admit- 
ting that  he  did  not  use  it.  (Does  a  scholar  have  to  use  all  the 
locutions  that  he  defends?)  Baskervill  and  Sewell-  say,  "be- 
coming more  and  more  common  among  good  writers."  They 
quote  "to  rightly  connect"  and  "to  first  imperfectly  conceive 
such  an  idea ' '  from  Herbert  Spencer ;  and  ' '  to  clearly  under- 
stand" from  Ruskin.  They  also  quote  several  cases  of  the  pas- 
sive form,  but  these  seem  to  have  escaped  criticism.  Carpen- 
ter^ says  (1898),  "Within  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  the 
usage  known  as  the  'split  infinitive'  .  .  .  has  come  to  be 
widely  used  in  colloquial  and  literary  English.  .  .  .  This 
usage  has  been  violently  attacked  by  rhetoricians  as  a  vul- 
garism ;  it  is,  however,  used  without  hesitation  by  many  writers 
of  repute.  In  some  cases  it  has  the  distinct  advantage  of 
bringing  an  adverb  into  an  emphatic  position;  e.g.,  'I  wish  to 
tJiorouglily  understand  this  matter.'  In  others  it  is  intoler- 
ably awkward."  Ilerrick  and  Damon,*  in  their  Rhetoric,  say, 
"It  is  not  really  an  error  in  grammar  and  is  to  be  objected  to 
only  when  it  produces  clumsiness."  Professor  George  P. 
Krapp^  argues  that  there  is  no  logical  objection  to  putting 
the  adverb  between  the  parts  of  the  infinitive,  and  says  further 
that  no  one  ever  objects  to  dividing  the  infinitive  in  -ing; 
e.g.,  "His  plan  for  heavily  taxing  the  people."  Krapp  adds, 
"the  'split  infinitive'  is  not  only  a  natural,  but  often  an 
admirable,  form  of  expression."  Professor  0.  F.  Emerson*' 
says,  "A  good  example  of  a  syntactical  combination  even  now 
establishing  itself  is  the  adverb  between  to  and  the  infinitive." 

'See  American  Journal  of  Philolomi,  HI,  IT  ff..  and  Xation,  vol.  56,  p.  274. 

^  English  Grammar,  pp.  323,  324. 

"Principles  of  Enylish  Grammar,  pp.  192,  193. 

^'Sew  Composition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  149. 

5  Modern  English,  pp.  298-300. 

'^  History  of  the  English  Language,  p  2TG. 


268  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Jesi:>orseu  ^  saj'S  that  this  constnietion,  which  he  refuses  to  call 
the  split  infinitive,  contributes  decidedly  to  clearness,  and 
quotes  from  standard  authors  two  sentences  that,  in  his  opin- 
ion, would  be  much  improved  by  putting  the  adverl)  between 
the  to  and  the  infinitive.  lie  then  quotes  from  Carlyle  a  sen- 
tence involving  a  split  infinitive,  a  sentence  which  he  recom- 
mends as  very  good  but  which,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  is  one 
of  the  ugliest  sentences  in  our  literature.  The  writer  will  add 
that  he  has  seen  only  one  split  infinitive  in  Carlyle  besides  the 
one  quoted  by  Jespersen. 

The  most  ardent  defender  of  the  split  infinitive  is  Professor 
Lounsbury,-  who,  it  would  seem,  never  uses  one.  He  defends 
it  very  ardently  in  a  long  chapter.  He  tells  us  how  Andrew 
Lang,  the  late  lamented  litterateur,  praised  the  English  gov- 
ernment for  standing  up  vigorously  against  a  split  infinitive 
in  drawing  a  treaty  with  us  Americans,  who  will  butcher  the 
English  language.  Then  he  proves  conclusively  that  to  +  the 
infinitive  was  originally  a  corruption,  while  the  insertion  of 
the  adverb  cannot  so  easily  be  proved  to  be  a  corruption.  He 
then  takes  up  the  charge  that  it  is  an  innovation.  He  quotes 
Dr.  Fitzedward  Hall  as  proving,  about  twenty  years  ago,  that 
this  locution  dates  from  the  fourteenth  century.  Among  the 
authors  cited  by  Dr.  Hall,  Professor  Lounsbury  names : 


Wycliffe 

Southey 

Pecock 

Coleridge 

Fortescuc 

liamb 

Tyndale 

Wordsworth 

Lord  Berners 

De  Quincey 

Thomas  Browne 

Cliarlcs  Rcade 

Pepys 

Macaulay 

Bentley 

Rusk  in 

Defoe 

Herbert  Spencer 

Dr.  Johnson 

Leslie  Stephen 

Burke 

^  Oroicth  and  fStnic1u)(   of  tJir  KnijUsh  LcnujiKifir.  pp.  -<»S,  209, 
2  Thv  titandard.  of  Usa<jc  iii.  EinjUnh,  pp.  240-2US. 


TEE  SPLIT  INFINITIVE  269 

Some  of  these  use  it  very  rarely,  says  Loiuisbury.  To  the 
list  quoted  from  Hall,  Loimsbiiry  adds  the  following: 

John  Donne  Newman 

Fanny  Burney  Carlylo 

Goldsmith  George  Eliot 

Franklin  Matthew  Arnold 

-     Burns  Browning 

Byron  Holmes 

Keats  Lowell 

Here  are  35  reputable  authors  from  Wycliffe  to  Lowell ;  how 
can  the  locution  be  called  either  a  vulgarism  or  an  innovation  ? 
The  writer  has  seen  tlie  following  cases : 

Wycliffe    2       J.  E.  Green 1 

Pecock    4       Bret  Harte 1 

Sir  Thomas  Browne 1       Jowett    1 

Burns   1       John  Fiske 1 

Byron   2       T.  B.  Aldrieh 3 

Coleridge   1       Stopford  Brooke    2 

Freneau   1       G.  K.  Chesterton 1 

Irving 1       G.  W.  Cable 1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   1       W.  E.  Henley 1 

George  Eliot 1       H.  W.  Mabie 4 

Dickens    1       Katharine  Lee  Bates 1 

Matthew  Arnold 3       Ella  W,  Wilcox 1 

Browning     23       Mrs.  H.  Ward 1 

Maeaulay  1       J.   K.    Hosmer 1 

Euskin 1       Henry  Drummond 2 

Herbert    Spencer 5       Saintsbury 1 

Carlyle   1       W.    D.    Whitney 1 

Here  we  have  about  20  authors  not  in  the  lists  above,  giving 
a  total  of  about  55  using  the  split  infinitive  occasionally. 

The  split  infinitive  spread  considerably  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  but  not  among  the  standard  authors ;  they  use  it  very 
sparingly.  The  statement  of  Baskervill  and  Sewell,  "It  is 
becoming  more  and  more  common  among  good  writers, ' '  must 
be  taken  cautiouslj^  One  has  to  search  the  great  literature  to 
find  the  split  infinitive ;  it  crops  up  frequently  in  scientific 


270  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

journals,  daily  papers,  reports  of  mercantile  societies,  and 
such  places.  It  is  used  pretty  frequently  by  well  educated 
men  not  especially  careful  of  their  English. 

Numerically,  Browning  is  the  greatest  otiPender.  Lounsbury 
cites  passages  of  Browning's  from  1835  on.  The  writer  has 
recorded  twenty-three  cases,  mostly  from  The  Ring  and  the 
Booh. 

Browning  not  only  uses  more  split  infinitives  than  any  other 
ten  great  authors  combined  but  leads  them  all  in  the  number  of 
words  put  between  to  and  the  infinitive : 

To  quietly  next  day  at  crow  of  cock 

C\d  my   own   throat  too.      {Tlie  Hhu/  and   the  Bool'.) 

Shall  we,  then,  adopt  and  push  this  locution?  Not  neces- 
sarily. The  other  form  is  vastly  stronger  in  the  literature  and 
in  polite  speech.  It  has  no  enemies,  raises  no  objections, 
excites  no  criticism.  But  we  are  interested  to  know  from  tlie 
facts  collected  that  the  use  of  a  split  infinitive  does  not  neces- 
sarily put  us  among  illiterates,  ignoramuses,  and  violators  of 
English  undefiled,  as  some  have  long  been  saying. 

It  has  been  said  above  that  the  split  infinitive  is  rare.  In  a 
wide  course  of  reading  covering  a  period  of  five  hundred  years, 
the  author  has  seen  only  seventy-two  cases,  while  he  has  seen 
the  regular  infinitive  thousands  of  times.  Though  very  rare 
in  standard  literature,  it  is  spreading  in  the  daily  and  weekly 
papers,  and  in  the  colloquial  English  of  the  intelligent  classes. 

While  a  good  many  reputable  authors  use  the  split  infini- 
tive, they  use  it  rarely.  In  hundreds  of  pages  of  Matthew 
Arnold,  only  three  cases  wore  found  :  in  Cable's  I)r.  Sciuer,  one 
ease ;  in  thousands  of  pages  of  George  Eliot,-  one  ease.  In  a 
short  article  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly,  on  the  other 
hand,  six  or  eight  cases  were  seen. 

If  we  deduct  Browning's  figures,  we  have  about  forty-nine 
split  infinitives  in  over  75,000  pages  of  English  and  American 
literature.    This  does  not  indicate  much  spreading  among  emi- 


THE  SPLIT  INFINITIVE  271 

nent  writers,  tliongh  this  class  may  adopt  it  in  this  century. 

We  myst  all  admit,  then,  that  the  split  infinitive  is  neither 
an  innovation  nor  a  vulgarism,  but  a  rarity  in  pure  literature ; 
that  it  is  ver}^  clear  and  very  convenient,  and  has  a  right  to  a 
trial  in  the  language. 

A  good  scholar  tells  ns  the  split  infinitive  is  very  common 
in  Swedish  literature. 

Matthew  Arnold  says, 

The  will  to  neither  strive  nor  cry, 
'The  power  to  feel  with  other,  give! 

"He  is  not  satisfied,  unless  he  can  tell  us,  all  in  one  sentence, 
and  without  permitting  himself  to  actually  mention  the  name, 
that,"  etc.^  Herbert  Spencer-  says,  "To  so  present  ideas  that 
they  may  be  apprehended  with  the  least  possible  mental  effort, ' ' 
etc. ;  also,  ' '  the  events  should  be  stated  in  such  sequence  that 
the  mind  may  not  have  to  go  backwards  and  forwards  in  order 
to  rightly  connect  them";  and  "to  an  active  mind  it  may  be 
easier  to  bear  along  all  the  qualifications  of  an  idea  and  at  once 
rightly  form  it  when  named,  than  to  first  imperfectly  conceive 
such  idea  and  then  carry  back  to  it,  one  by  one,  the  details  and 
limitations  afterwards  mentioned. ' '  Browning,  the  high  priest 
of  the  split  infinitive,  says  {The  Ring  and  the  Book), 

To  somehoxo  make  a  shift  and  scramble  through 

The  world's  mud. 

Send  five  souls  more  to  just  precede  his  own. 

survives,  we  '11  hope, 
To  somewhat  purify  her  putrid  soul 
By  full  confession. 
Without  help,  make  shift  to  even  speak,  you  see. 

George  Eliot^  says,  ' '  It  was  in  the  nature  of  a  stroke  to  partly 
take  away  the  use  of  a  man's  limbs  and  throw  him  on  the 
parish, ' ' 

*  Essay  On  Translating  Homer. 
^Philosophy  oj  Style. 
'^  Silas  Marner. 


272  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXIV 

* 

SPLITTING  TARTICLES 

A  man  doesn't  think  niueli  of,  nor  oaro  mncli  for,  a  woman  (nitside  of 
his  honsehold,  unless,  dc (Oliver  WendeU  Holmes.) 

The  use  of  the  prepositions  as  seen  in  the  sentence  above  is 
called  "the  splitting  of  particles."  It  is  condemned  by  most 
writers  on  style  but  is  found  all  through  the  literature.  Dr. 
Hugh  Blair  in  his  Rhetoric^  says,  "What  is  called  splitting 
of  particles,  or  separating  a  preposition  from  the  noun  which 
it  governs,  is  always  to  be  avoided.  As  if  I  should  say, 
'Though  virtue  borrows  no  assistance  from,  yet  it  may  often 
be  accompanied  hy,  the  advantages  of  fortune.'  In  such 
instances,  we  feel  a  sort  of  pain,  from  the  revulsion,  or  violent 
separation  of  two  things,  which,  by  their  nature,  should  be 
closely  united.  We  are  put  to  a  stand  in  thought;  being 
obliged  to  rest  for  a  little  on  the  preposition  by  itself,  which, 
at  the  same  time,  carries  no  signiflcancy,  till  it  is  joined  to  its 
proper  substantive  noun."  That  Blair  in  this  same  book 
violates  his  own  canon  at  least  four  times  the  table  will  prove. 
Dean  Alford  condemned  this  construction  rather  mildly.  In 
his  Queen's  English-  he  says,  "in  sentences  where  several 
forms  of  speech  converge,  so  to  speak,  on  one  term,  that  term 
is  better  expressed  or  indicated  after  each  of  them,  than 
reserved  to  be  expressed  or  indicated  once  only  at  the  end 
of  all." 

Genung^  is  very  lenient  toward  this  construction.  He  says, 
"is  to  be  used  only  with  great  caution,  and  with  no  long- 
delay  after  the  particle."  He  himself  uses  it  in  his  college 
textbooks  pretty  frequently.  In  his  most  recent  textbook,  he 
treats  it  as  a  "suspect"  under  the  head  of  "ellipses."     The 

1  p.  124. 
2rp.  140,  141. 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  l."0  (2);  VTorJcinfj  Prineiplca  of  Rhetoric,  p. 
302   (■^^. 


SPLITTIXG  PAnTICLES 


textbook  by  the  elder  Hart,  a  distinguished  rhetorical  scholar 
of  his  day,  and  revised  by  his  distinguished  son,  J.  1.1,  Hart, 
takes  the  same  view  as  Dr.  Blair. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following  cases : 


Latimer    

Sir  Thomas  Biowiu'.  .  .  . 

Jeremy  Taylor 

Defoe    

Burnet    

Dr.  Blair   

Thomas  Paine 

Burke   

Christopher  North    .  .  .  . 
Sir  William   Hamilton, 

Gibbon   

Shelley   

Coleridge   

Hazlitt   

Lamb    

Jefferson    

Scott  

Hallam 

Dickens    

Holmes 

Poe 

Prescott   

Motley    

Cooper    

Euskin    

Hare   

Stanley     

Macaulay   

Thackeray    

Milman 

Kingsley 


1  Bulwer    2 

2  Douglas  Jerrold 1 

4       Lounsbury   3 

2       Chesterton   5 

1       Mrs.  H.  Ward 2 

4  G.  W.  Cable.: 3 

1  Genung     15 

2  Stopf ord   Brooke 12 

1  Price  Collier   10 

i;'>       Saintsbury 4 

Pater    2 

Browning     1 

Dean   Trench    11 

George  P.  Marsh 1 

Fitzedward  Hall 1 

Professor  John  Earle 5 

Emerson     1 

2  Monckton  Milnes 1 

1  John  Lubbock 1 

.•?       W.  D.  Whitney 12 

2  William  Minto   3 

1  Matthew    Arnold 3 

2  Fronde   6 

3  H.  W.  Mabie  15 

5  Huxley  5 

1       Churton  Collins    2 

3  Sidney  Lee   1 

,3       Walter    Bagehot    2 

.2       T.  N.  Page 2 

4  Sir  Leslie  Stephen 1 

1       Ivatharine    I^oe   Bates 1 


Here  are  62  reputable  writers  in  nearly  250  pas.sages,  cov- 
ering a  period  of  350  years.  On  the  list  stand  Blair,  Fitzed- 
ward Hall,  Dean  Trench,  George  P.  Marsh,  Minto,  Whitney, 
Lounsbury,  Earle,  and  other  eminent  students  of  style  and  of 


274  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

language;  Coleridge,  Froude,  Ruskin,  Macauli.y,  and  other 
famous  prose  stylists. 

Illustrative  passages  may  be  added.  Emerson  in  The  Over- 
Sovl  says,  "It  calls  the  light  its  own,  and  feels  that  the  grass 
grows  and  the  stone  falls  by  a  law  inferior  to,  and  dependent 
on,  its  nature."  Froude  in  his  Lives  of  the  Saints  says, 
''certain  progressive  organizing  laws  in  which  the  fretful 
lives  of  each  of  us  are  gathei^ed  into  and  subordinated  in 
some  larger  unity."  Motley  {Dutch  Republic)  says,  "The 
Walloons  were  the  first  to  rebel  against  and  the  first  to  recon- 
cile themselves  with  papal  Rome."  Prescott  in  his  Miscellanies 
says,  "a  principal  incentive  to,  as  they  M'ere  the  recompense 
of,  exertion."  Ruskin  in  Sesame  and  Lilies  uses  a  little  differ- 
ent form  of  this  ' '  error  "  :  "  You  may  measure  your  dominion 
by  multitudes,  better  than  by  miles;  and  count  degrees  of 
love-latitude,  not  from,  but  to,  a  wonderfully  warm  and  infi- 
nite equator";  and,  "altars  built,  not  to,  but  by  an  Unknown 
God."  Macaulay  uses  various  forms  of  ellipsis  and  splitting 
of  particles:  "The  line  of  demarcation  was  not,  and  perhaps 
could  not  be,  drawn  with  precision";  also,  "At  some  other 
important  stations  on  or  near  the  coast";  and,  "Those  Whigs 
who  stood  by  the  new  dynasty  so  manfully  with  purse  and 
sword  did  so  on  principles  independent  of,  and  indeed  almost 
incompatible  ivith,  the  sentiment  of  devoted  loyalty." 

The  writers  on  usage  and  propriety  are  much  stricter  than 
the  great  authors  in  this  matter  as  in  others. 

It  may  be  added  that  various  forms  of  ellipsis  are  common 
in  the  literature ;  this  particular  form  is  more  attacked  than 
the  others.  It  certainly  detracts  from  the  beauty  of  a  sen- 
tence, though  it  conduces  to  rapidity.  We  may  say,  also, 
that  it  is  not  used  much  by  the  great  stylists. 

These  elliptical  sentences  attacked  by  Blair,  Alford,  and 
others  have  been  spreading  in  English  for  many  centuries; 
they  are  all  due  to  the  desire  for  brevity.  They  could  not 
spread,  however,  as  long  as  English  was  a  highly  inflected 


SUCH  AS  AN  ADVEEB  275 

language.  For  instance,  if  the  prepositions  in  the  foregoing 
sentences  required  different  cases,  the  ellipsis  would  be  impos- 
sible. The  split  constructions,  in  other  words,  followed  upon 
the  decay  of  inflections  in  the  Middle  English  period. 


CXV 

SUCH  AS  AN  ADVERB 

Quaekenbos^  and  Genuug-  says  that  such  should  not  be  used 
for  so;  as  ''such  a  beautiful  vine."  That  is,  we  must  say  "so 
beautiful  a  vine, ' '  Is  this  used  much  either  in  literature  or  in 
polite  society  ?  "I  never  saw  weather  so  severe ' '  is  very 
little  used;  "I  never  saw  such  severe  v/eather"  is  very  com- 
mon in  conversation  and  is  found  in  literature. 

Webster  is  against  the  view  taken  by  the  textbooks  referred 
to.  This  dictionary  uses  the  phrase  "such  a  terrible  storm" 
and  quotes  "such  excellent  order"  from  Daniel  Defoe.  The 
Century  Dictionary  says  that  such  in  this  locution  assumes  a 
quasi-adverbial  appearance  but  is  really  an  adjective.  The 
Century  quotes  a  passage  from  Shakespeare.  Baskervill  and 
Seweli^  treat  this  siich  as  an  adverb  equivalent  to  so,  and 
quote  "such  universal  popularity,"  from  Irving;  "such  a 
glittering  appearance,"  from  Hawthorne;  and  "such  com- 
manding power,"  from  Lecky.  They  go  on  to  say  that  this 
use  of  such  is  found  in  the  following  authors,  among  others: 
Grote,  Emerson,  Thackeray,  Motley,  White.  The  Encyclo- 
pedic Dictionary  recognizes  this  use  and  cites  the  phrase 
"such  terrible  weather." 

Wliile  this  use  of  such  has  considerable  vogue  in  polite  col- 
loquial English,  it  seems  to  be  avoided  in  writing.  The  only 
authors  the  writer  can  quote  are  Samuel  Johnson,   George 

^Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  243. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  329. 

^  Engliih  Grammar,  p.  ISG. 


276 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Saintsbury,  and  John  I^urrouylis.  Yet,  as  seen  above,  it  has 
warm  support  in  hifi'h  quarters. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  such  {swijlce)  was  often  used  as  an  adver- 
bial conjunction,  also  with  numerals  in  the  sense  of  "about." 
Abbott^  treats  such  in  "such  a  man"  and  similar  phrases  as 
semi-advor])ial ;  why  should  we  hesitate  to  treat  ,s'(^(7(  as  adver- 
bial or  quasi-adverbial  in  the  phrases  under  discussion? 

Dr.  Johnson  in  a  letter  says,  "condolences  and  consolations 
are  such  common  and  such  useless  things,  that  the  omission 
of  them  is  no  great  crime." 


CXVI 


SUCH  A  ONE  AND   SUCH  AN  ONE 


Which  is  right,  such  a  one  or  such  an  one  I' 
ture  help  us  to  settle  the  question. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following : 


Let  the  litera- 


J.     SUCH  A   ONE 


Interlude  of  Thersytes 3 

Shakespeare    3 

King  James  Bible 4 

Shakespeare  and  Fletcher 1 

Prayer    Book    2 

Massinger    4 

Lyly    1 

Jeremy  Taylor   2 

Congreve    2 

Baxter 1 


Addison    2 

Pope 1 

Steele   2 

Bolingbroke     1 

Burke  2 

Goldsmith    1 


Hume   1 

Shelley    1 

Keats   1 

Lamb    4 

Bryant    1 

Cooper    1 

Holmes 1 

Huxley   1 

Carlyle   2 

Fitzedward  Hall 1 

Tennyson    5 

Browning 1 

Kichard  Grant  White 1 

Kingsley    3 

Jones  Very   1 

Lowell     1 


>  note  to  rarsc,  p.  142. 


SUCH  A   ONE  AND  SUCH  AN  ONE 


277 


Herbert  Sj^eneer 1 

Whitney 1 

Cable    '. ■ 2 

38  authorities;  (J5  cases. 


Lounsbury  1 

E.  C.  Stedman   1 

H.  W.  Mabie 1 


,?.     SUCH  AN  ONE 


Mandeville  i 1 

Bacon  1 

King  James  BiMo 10 

Shakespeare    1 

Addison    2 

Eobert  South    

Pope 

Hume   

Bishop  Warburton 

Locke    

Jefferson    

Maeaulay 


24  authorities;  49  cases. 
Oil  both  sides  we  find  : 


Shakespeare 
King  James  Bible 
Addison 
Pope 


Tennyson 1 

Morris    3 

Browning 10 

Lang 1 

Swinburne     2 

Mabie 1 

Freeman     1 

D.  G.  Mitchell 3 

Dr.  James  On- 1 

Huxley   1 

C.  Geikie   1 

Stevenson     2 


Hume 
Browning 
Tennyson 
Mabie 


As  seen  from  the  tables,  Browning  uses  the  an  ten  times; 
a,  once.  In  this,  as  in  various  matters,  Browning's  usage  dif- 
fers from  that  of  his  colleagues  in  literature. 

Dean  Alford  says,"  "It  seems  to  me  that  we  may  now,  in 
writing,  use  either.  In  common  talk  I  should  always  naturally 
say  such  a  one,  not  such  an  o»e;whieh  would  sound  formal  and 
stilted." 

It  may  be  added  that  the  phrase  started  out  as  such  one, 
from  ]\Iiddle  English  sivilk  an.  This  becomes  such  one  in 
Chaucer,  Wycliffe,  and  Maloiy.  The  earliest  case  of  such  a  one 
seen  bv  the  Avriter  is  sicke  a  ivon  in  the  ballad  of  Johnnie 


^  Borrowed  from  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant. 
-The  Quecn'n  EmjliHli,  lbW>,  p.  49. 


278  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Armstrong,  probably  written  down  between  the  time  of  Malory 
and  that  of  Shakespeare.  Oliphant  ^  records,  such  an  one  in 
Mandeville,  which  puts  that  ahead  of  such  a  one,  as  would  be 
expected,  an  being  the  original  form  of  the  article.  Such  one 
lasted  through  the  days  of  Coverdale,  the  Geneva  Bible,  and 
the  sermons  of  Latimer,  after  the  other  locution  had  started 
out." 

The  tendency  in  polite  speech  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  such  a 
one.  This  has  in  its  favor  the  same  economy  of  utterance  that 
led  to  the  evolution  of  a  from  a)i  before  consonants:  why 
should  we  say  such  an  one  any  more  than  "an  one-sided 
affair",  "an  one-armed  man,"  etc.?  The  word  one  begins 
with  a  IV  in  pronunciation  and  the  n  would  naturally  drop  off 
the  article.  Such  an  one  is  rather  puristic;  it  is  opposed  to 
the  principle  of  economy  and  to  the  tendency  of  the  language. 
In  tlie  nineteenth  century,  such  a  one  outstripped  such  an 
one  in  literature,  both  in  quantity  and  in  quality,  though  the 
"an"  form  has  considerable  vitality. 

Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "and  every  now  and  then 
inquires  how  sucli  an  one's  wife,  or  mother,  or  son,  or  father 
do,  whom  he  does  not  see  at  church " ;  "  one  of  Sir  Roger 's 
servants  would  ride  up  to  his  master  full  speed,  and  whisper  to 
him  that  the  master  of  the  house  was  against  such  a  one  in  the 
last  election."  Burke,  as  far  as  noted,  uses  a:  "The  colleagues 
.  .  .  were  obliged  to  ask,  'Sir,  your  name?' — 'Sir,  you  have 
the  advantage  of  me.' — 'Mr.  Such-a-One' — 'T  beg  a  thousand 
pardons.'  "  Again,  in  the  same  speech  {Conciliation)  : 
"When  snch  a  one  is  disarmed,  he  is  wholly  at  the  mercy  of 
his  superior."  Tennyson  seems  to  prefer  a  though  he  also 
uses  the  other: 

To  such  a  one 
He  promised  more  than  ever  king  has  given. 

She  ■wept  licr  true  eyes  blind  for  such  a  one. 
»  The  New  Englishj  I,  163. 


THE  SUPEELATIVE  USED  OF  TWO  279 

Swinburne,  as  far  as  noted,  uses  an: 

And  lo,  between  the  nightfall  and  the  light, 
He    is    not,    and   none   knoweth    of    stich    an   one. 

Shall  such  an  one  lend  love  or  borrow? 
Shall  these  be  sorry  for  thy  sorrow? 

If  we  consider  that  the  Bible  is  archaic  in  many  respects  and 
Browning  fantastic  in  his  grammar,  we  must  conclude  that 
such  a  one  has  overwhelming  modern  usage  in  its  favor. 


CXVII 

THE  SUPEELATIVE  USED  OF  TWO 

Shall  the  superlative  be  used  of  tivo?  On  this  point  the 
rhetorical  scholars  are  very  strict.  A.  S.  Hill,^  Genung,-  and 
Herrick  and  Damon  ^  are  all  against  it.  The  grammarians  are 
less  rigid.  Bain*  says,  "the  rule  is  not  strictly  adhered  to." 
He  quotes  one  passage  from  Thackeray,  and  says,  "Writers 
and  speakers  continually  use  the  superlative  in  comparing  two 
things."  Whitney^  says,  "both  in  ordinary  talk  and  in  lit- 
erature, it  is  very  common  to  speak  of  one  of  two  things  as  being 
the  longest,  although  to  say  the  longer-  is  more  accurate  and 
more  approved."  Carpenter °  says,  "seems  to  be  almost 
invariably  due  to  carelessness,  but  it  is  so  common,  both  in 
colloquial  and  literary  English,  and  so  natural,  that  it  must 
usually  be  regarded  as  an  innocent  error."  Baskervill  and 
Sewell'  say,  "The  superlative  degree  of  the  adjective  (or 
adverb)  ...  is  also  frequently  used  in  comparing  only  two 
things."     They  cite  passages  from  Dr.  Blair,  Addison,  Gold- 

1  Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  262,  263. 

2  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  57. 

'A'ew  Composition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  151. 
*  Higher  English  Grammar,  p.  150. 
^Essentials  of  English  Grammar,  p.  87. 
"Principles  of  English  Grammar,  p.  178. 
'  English  Grammar,  pp.  306,  307. 


280  STUDIES  IX  USAGE 

smith,  Irving,  Seott,  Hawthorne,  Thackeray,  Ruskin,  Emerson, 
and  Mrs.  Oliphant.     Some  of  the  sentences  involve  adverbs. 

W.  J.  Rolfe,  in  his  edition  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice,'^ 
defends  this  use  of  the  superlative  as  seen  in  Shakespeare,  and 
says  "it  is  good  old  English  though  condemned  hy  most  modern 
grammars."  (Since  Rolfe  wrote  this,  the  best  grammars  have 
defended  the  construction.) ' 

Lounsbuiy-  is  a  stanch  defender  of  this  superlative.  He 
says,  "Met  with  constantly  in  the  best  writers." 

Add  to  the  foregoing  defenders  of  this  locution  the  following 
authorities  that  use  it : 

Shakespeare     1       Chesterfield    1 

I    Henry  VI 2       Thackeray    1 

Dr.   Johnson    2       William  Minto    1 

After  a  careful  study  of  the  superlative  used  of  two,  it 
appears  that  the  three  textbooks  quoted  are  in  a  decided 
minority  as  compared  with  the  authors  and  the  greater 
grammarians. 

Polite  conversation  teems  with  this  locution;  in  fact,  only 
the  most  careful  confine  themselves  to  the  other.  Indeed,  it 
would  seem  that  the  comparative  degree  of  adjectives  is  on  the 
road  to  extinction  except  before  than.  Alexander  Bain  ^  says 
that  the  comparative  as  in  "the  larger  of  the  two"  is  a  useless 
encumbrance  in  the  language. 

Boswell  quotes  Johnson  as  saying,  "We  must  consider 
whether  Homer  was  not  the  greatest  poet,  though  Virgil  may 
have  produced  the  finest  poem.""  They  were  comparing  the 
two.  Chesterfield  says,  "it  is  hard  to  say  which  of  the  two 
is  the  most  mischievous  weapon." 

'  Notes  to  that  plaj',  p.  1.j7,  note  7,  old  edition. 
"  Ifistorn  of  the  English  Lanyuar/c,  p.  252. 
"  nighcr  English  Grammar,  p.  150. 


SUPEBLATIl'ES  IREEGULAELY  FOEMED  281 

CXVIII 

SUPERLATIVES  IREEGULAELY  FORMED 

Many  g)"aiiunars  give  us  the  idea  tliat  forms  like  diligcntcst, 
Jionestest,  etc.,  are  ratlier  uiigrammatieal.  Baskervill  and 
Sewell/  however,  sliow  ns  by  examples  from  literature  "how 
literary  English  overrides  any  rule  that  could  be  given." 
Lounsbury,  also,  tells  us  tliat  the  more  and  most  forms  have 
predominated,  not  because  the  others  are  improper  but  be- 
cause the  forms  in  more  and  most  are  more  euphonious.  Take 
this  very  one  just  used:  there  are  very  eminent  authors  who 
"would  not  hesitate  to  say  "euphoniouser"  sometimes;  and 
such  a  form  would  be  perfectly  grammatical,  though  not 
altogether  pleasant  to  the  ear.  Carpenter-  says,  "The  ear 
alone  decides." 

The  writer  watched  the  literature  closely  to  see  how  many 
great  authors  use  these  forms. 

First  let  us  cite  the  authors  ciuoted  by  Baskervill  and  Sewell 
in  their  grammar:  From  Thackeray  they  cite  handsomest, 
imniensesf,  wondcrfulest;  from  Ruskin,  patientest,  distantest, 
sorrou'fulcsf;  from  Carlyle,  h(  autifulcst,  mournfidest,  Jionest- 
est, admirablest,  indisputdblest ,  peaceaMest. 

The  writer  has  recorded  the  following : 

Latimer,  grievouser. 

Shakespeare,  w'oefullest. 

Milton,  accuratest,  diligentest,  exquisitest,  i)owerfullest. 

Keats,  fancifullest  and  beautifullest. 

Browning,  portentousest  aiid  irreligiousest. 

Carlyle,  nakedest,  savagest,  honestest,  solidest,  \vretchedest, 
activest,  pitifuller,  usefuller,  incorruptiblest,  etc. 

Charles  Lamh,  learneder,  servilest,  correctest,  comfortablest. 

1  English  Grammar,  p.  109. 

TrinvipJcs  0/  7v«(/J(-s7(  Grnvnifir,  p.  Id.'i. 


282  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

G.  W.  Cable,  lovingest. 

Tennyson,  secretest,  absoluter. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  comparison  by  more  and  most  is 
due  to  French  influence  and  came  into  English  in  the  Middle 
English  period.  Writers  like  Browning,  Carlyle,  Milton,  Lat- 
imer, Shakespeare,  and  Ruskin  often  revert,  more  or  less 
unconsciously,  to  the  older  forms  of  expression ;  it  is  the  small 
writers  who  are  afraid  to  leave  the  beaten  track  of  language. 

Milton  in  Areopagitica  says,  "wliile  the  book  is  yet  under 
the  press,  which  not  seldom  happens  to  the  best  and  diligcntest 
writers";  ''or  the  author  lose  his  accuratest  thoughts  and 
send  the  book  forth  worse  than  he  had  made  it";  "to  gnaw 
out  the  choicest  periods  of  exquisitest  books."  Tennyson  in 
The  Poet  says, 

With  echoing  feet  he  threaded 
The  secretest  walks  of  fame. 

Keats  sa^'s  in  Endymion, 

Or  to  tread  breathless  round  the  frothy  main, 
And  gather  np  all  fancifulJcst  shells. 

Say,    icautif idlest,    shall   I   never   think? 

Browning  {The  It'nuj  and  the  Book)  says, 

Thus  it  happed  not,  since  thus  he  did  the  deed, 
And  proved  himself  thereby  portentousest 
Of  cutthroats. 

Tills  is  the  man  proves  irreligiousest 
Of  all  mankind,  religion  's  i)arasite. 

Any  one  who  cares  to  risk  these  uneuphonious  though  gram- 
matical forms  has  high  authority  for  doing  so. 


SUSPECT  =  SUPPOSE,  IMAGINE  283 

CXIX 

SUSPECT       SUPPOSE,  IMAGINE 

A  good  iiuniy  people  say  snsp(ct  for  "suppose",  ''imag- 
ine", "think."  Some  may  do  this  in  order  to  avoid  expect, 
which  is  of  course  a  vulgarism.  But  is  suspect  very  much 
better  than  expect  ?  Are  those  who  use  it  not  running  from 
Scylla  to  Charybdis  ?  The  one  vital  difference  between  the  two 
words  is  that  expect  in  the  meaning  under  discussion  has  no 
standing  in  literature,  while  suspect  is  used  by  a  respectable 
number  of  the  best  authors  and  by  a  large  number  of  edu- 
cated men  and  scholars  not  strictly  literary. 

The  writer  has  seen  suspect  in  this  sense  in  the  following : 

Dr.  Johnson 1  Emerson 2 

George  Campliell    5  Holmes 3 

Thomas  Jefferson 3  Fitzedward   Hall    4 

Lamb    2  Bulwer   1 

Milman     1  Sir  Henry  Taylor 1 

Hallam 1  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant 7 

Browning 2  Freeman     1 

Hawthorne     1  W.  J.  Eolfc    1 

Low^ell    20  H.  N.  Hndson 4 

Kingsley 1  E.  C.  Stedman 4 

Herbert  Spencer 1  James  Bryce   1 

Macanlay  13  W,  W.  Skeat 2 

The  statistics  given  above  and  the  pretty  wide  use  of  suspect 
in  polite  conversation  indicate  a  need  for  this  word  or  some 
other  conveying  the  same  shade  of  meaning.  Suspect,  how- 
ever, as  Webster  says,  usually  has  an  unfavorable  meaning ; 
and  it  may  be  added  that  it  will  never  be  popular  as  long  as  it 
has  this  unpleasant  connotation. 

George  Campbell  says,  "First,  the  word  motile,  from  which 
it  is  contracted,  can  scarcely  be  called  English,  and,  I  suspect, 
never  had  the  sanction  of  the  public  voice";  and,  "Some  of 
these,  I  suspect,  have  as  yet  escaped  the  animadversion  of 


284  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

all  our  critics."  Macaulay  iii  his  essay  on  Bacon  says,  "Such 
questions,  we  suspect,  would  have  puzzled  Simplicius  and 
Isidore."    Browning  {The  Ring  and  the  Book)  says, 

Peter  and  John  and  Judas  spent  a  day 
In  toil  and  travel  through  the  country-side 
On    some    sufficient    business — I    suspect, 
Suppression  of  some  Molinism  i'  the  bud. 

W.  J.  Rolfe  in  his  comments  on  the  Merchant  of  Venice  says, 
"I  suspect  that  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  the  com- 
mentators, ' '  etc.  Kingsley  makes  one  of  the  leading  characters 
in  Hereward  say,  "He  will  soon  be  off  to  the  Orkneys,  I 
suspect,  or  to  Sweyn  in  Denmark,  after  Vikings. ' ' 

Of  course  "suppose",  "think",  "imagine",  "dare  say" 
are  less  open  to  attack  than  suspect;  but  we  seem  to  need 
another  word  to  convey  our  meaning.  This  explains  also  the 
provincial  expect,  guess,  and  reckon. 

"William  James,  the  psychologist,  uses  suspect  in  his  books ; 
and  he  no  doubt  represents  a  large  constituency  of  educated 
men  and  women  not  producing  what  is  generally  called 
literature. 


cxx 

SYMPATHY  WITH,  FOR,  IN 

The  writer  has  often  hesitated  whether  to  say  sgmpathy 
with  or  sympathy  for  a  person.  No  doubt  others  have  had 
the  same  experience. 

L     AS  TO  PP]RSOXS 

Webster  says  that  sympathy  is  usually  followed  by  for; 
the  Encyclopedic  Dictionary  says  tvith.  De  Quincey^  calls 
sympathy  for  a  barbarism,   an  opinion  Avhich  Genung^  en- 

1  Fiir  both  statements  of  opinion,  see  Genung's  h'lictoricul  Anali/slx^  pp. 
11,12. 


SYMPATHY  WTTH,  FOF,  IX  285 

dorses.      Genung   is   again    jiossessed    liy    tlic    evil    spirit    of 
derivation. 

The  present  writer  has  seen  sympathy  for  a  person  in 
Bnrke,  Chalmers,  and  the  Standard  Dictionary ;  sympathy 
icith  a  person  in  De  Quincev,  Macanlay,  Phillips  Brooks,  and 
the  Century  Dictionary.  For  instance,  De  Qnincey  {On  the 
Knocking  at  the  Gate  in  ^'Machcth")  says,  "Wliat  then 
mnst  he  (the  poet)  do?  He  mnst  throw  the  interest  on  the 
murderer.  Our  sympathy  must  be  with  him,"  etc.  Burke 
(Fox's  East  India  Bill)  says,  "In  order  to  awaken  something 
of  sympathy  for  the  unfortunate  natives."  The  Century  Dic- 
tionary uses  the  phrase  '*to  have  sympathy  ivith  a  person  in 
his  hopes,  aspirations,  or  aims." 

2.     AS  TO  THINGS  OR  EMOTIONS 

The  writer  has  seen  sympathy  with  in  Cowper.  Hallam. 
Hawthorne,  and  Professor  John  Earle ;  sympathy  in,  in  Poe : 
sympathy  for,  in  Hawthorne.  For  instance,  Hawthorne 
{BlithedaJe  Romance)  says,  "Priscilla's  silent  sympathies 
with  his  purposes."  Poe  in  The  Poetic  Principle  speaks  of 
"our  sympathy  in  the  poet's  enthusiasm."  Hawthorne 
(Ifrtr&^e  i^flinO,  speaks  of  "the  marble  faces  (which)  .  .  .  had 
no  sympathy  for  his  disappointment." 

None  of  the  phrases  under  discussion  are  very  common  in 
standard  literature.  The  author  of  this  volume  will  not  ven- 
ture to  make  an  authoritative  statement  as  to  any  one  of 
them :  the  reader  can  easily  see  that,  as  far  as  the  present 
course  of  study  shows,  there  is  some  high  authority  for  all 
the  phrases  under  investigation. 


286  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXXI 

TALENTED 

The  adjective  talented  was  condemned  by  Johnson,  Cole- 
ridge, Landor,  Trench,  and  Alford.  Coleridge^  in  his  Table 
Talk  calls  it  "that  vile  and  barbarous  vocable,"  adding,  "Most 
of  these  pieces  of  slang  come  from  America."  Upon  which 
remark  of  the  poet,  his  nephew"  and  literary  executor  com- 
ments: "They  do."  Dean  Alford^  said,  "about  as  bad  as 
possible."  Genung*  says,  "in  good  usage,  tliough  the  most 
careful  writers  avoid  it."  Talented  is  ridiculed  by  Wliite  in 
his  Words  and  Their  Uses. 

T.  L.  K.  Olipliant  finds  the  word  in  1627  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Archbishop  Abbott.^  It  is  recognized  by  the  Century, 
the  Standard,  Worcester,  "Webster's  International,  and  the 
Encyclopedic  dictionaries,  the  last  two  defending  it  in  a  note. 
The  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  quoting  Lytton, 
Southey,  Ilerschel,  William  Taylor,  Pusey,  and  Whittier. 
Fitzedward  Hall"  defended  it  stoutly.  Herrick  and  Damon ^ 
in  their  chapter  on  usage  say,  "In  perfectly  reputable  use 
today."  Jespersen^  puts  it  among  adjectives  in  -ed  along 
with  hlue-eyed,  goodiiatured,  renoivneel,  and  conceited,  all 
formed  from  nouns,  by  adding  -ed. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  word  twice  in  Dickens,  once  in  Poe, 
and  once  in  a  book  by  Professor  T.  M.  Parrott.  No  doubt  many 
writers  avoid  the  word  on  account  of  the  opposition  of  men 
like  those  named  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  this  section. 
It  is  used  in  polite  society. 

1  See  TaUe  Talk  under  July  8,  1S32. 

2  See  note  to  foregoing  reference. 

2  The  Queen's  English,  18G6,  p.  109. 
*  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  330. 

5  See    The  Xew   English,    II,    8©.      For    cntalentcd   in    a    poem    of    Occlcvc, 
A.D.,  1402,  see  'Keic  English,  I,  208. 
^Modern  English,  pp.  70  ff. 
'' Kcw  Composition  and  Rhetoric,  p.  227. 
^  Orowth  and  >stnicturc  of  the  English  Language,  p.  103, 


TALENTED  287 

The  objection  urged  against  talented  is  that  -ed  should  not 
be  added  to  a  noun  to  form  an  adjective.  This  argument 
would  be  equally  valid  against  gifted  and  moneyed  and  others 
which  seem  to  be  thoroughly  established  in  the  language.  Man- 
deville,  over  five  hundred  years  ago,  has  noiu  sivcrdcd  and  now 
daggered,  showing  that  adjectives  were  formed  from  nouns  by 
adding  -ed  at  the  beginning  of  the  modern  English  period. 
Adjectives  have  been  formed  from  nouns  by  adding  -ed  in  all 
periods  of  modern  English;  e.g.,  diademed,  rihljoned,  landed, 
leisured,  lettered  and  unlettered,  widoived,  winged,  bigoted, 
crabbed.  (Borrowed  from  Fitzedward  Hall.)  We  speak  of 
the  ''landed  gentry,"  the  "unlettered  classes,"  the  "widowed 
pillow,"  a  "crab])ed  person",  "moneyed  men";  why  not  say 
' '  a  talented  man  "  ?    So  much  for  etymology. 

As  to  its  long  use  in  the  language  :  we  have  shown  that  it  has 
been  domesticated  for  almost  three  centuries.  As  to  its  con- 
venience and  usefulness  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Some  have  objected  to  the  use  of  talent  in  the  metaphorical 
sense.  This,  however,  is  perfectly  in  accord  with  the  genius 
of  language,  the  transition  from  the  physical  to  the  psychical 
being  exceedingly  common:  from  talent,  a  sum  of  money,  to 
talent,  a  mental  endowment,  is  perfectly  natural. 

If  numbers  count,  talented  is  certainly  in  good  standing. 

Dickens  in  Pickivick  says,  "It  was  in  the  evening,  however, 
that  the  Peacock  presented  attractions  which  enabled  the  two 
friends  to  resist  even  the  invitations  of  the  talented,  though 
prosily  inclined,  Mr.  Pott";  and,  "the  following  effusion, 
which  we  I'eceived  while  we  were  writing  the  commencement 
of  this  article  from  a  talented  fellow-townsman  and  corre- 
spondent." The  American  dictionaries,  while  defending  the 
word,  do  not  quote  from  the  literature.  They  might  quote 
Poe:  "so  called  from  its  talented  inventor,  my  father." 


288  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXXII 

TENSE  OF  THE   INFINITIVE 

Esmond  ■would  liavc  liked  iu  have  lissed  ber  iu  lier  shroud.  (Thaclc- 
eray.) 

The  sentence  given  above  is  tj^ical  of  a  large  number  of 
sentences  used  in  polite  society  as  in  literature.  It  is  con- 
demned by  writers  on  usage  from  George  Campbell  to  living 
textbook-makers. 

Campbell  ^  says :  "When  the  infinitive  is  expressive  of  what 
is  conceived  to  be  either  future  in  regard  to  the  verb  in  the 
present,  or  contemporary,  the  infinitive  ought  to  be  in  the 
present.  .  .  .  The  same  rule  must  be  followed  when  the  gov- 
erning verb  is  in  the  preterite ;  for  let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is 
the  tense  of  the  governing  verb  only  that  marks  the  absolute 
time ;  the  tense  of  the  verb  governed  marks  solely  its  relative 
time  with  respect  to  the  other.  Thus  I  should  say,  'I  always 
intended  to  write  to  my  father,  though  I  have  not  yet  done 
it. '  "  A  * '  common  error ' '  treated  of  in  the  school  books  is 
putting  to  have  written  in  the  sentence  quoted  from  Campbell. 
Of  course  the  sentence  from  Thackeray  at  the  head  of  this 
section  is  faulty  if  that  canon  be  accepted. 

Eichard  Grant  White,-  in  1880,  condemned  this  construc- 
tion, saying  that  it  was  very  common  even  among  good 
writers,  but  wrong  in  spite  of  all  the  authors  that  ever  did 
use  it  or  might  use  it.  He  cites  two  passages  from  Black's 
Princess  of  Thule;  also  passages  from  Heywood,  Middleton, 
Shirley,  Clarendon,  and  Buckle — three  hundred  years  of 
error. 

Quackenbos,-"'  A.  S.  Hill/  and  Genung,-"'  in  their  schooll)ooks, 

^Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,  Book  II,  chap.  IV. 

-  Every-day   English,   pp.   477ff. 

=>  Tract ical  Rhetoric,   ISOO,  p.  2.^^). 

*  Brglnninfift  of  liJirtoric  and  Comixinition,  pp.  1S7-1S9. 

r'  OufUttcs  of  Rhetoric,  1000,  p.  G.".. 


TENSE  OF  THE  INFINITIVE  289 

give  the  same  rule  that  Campbell  gave  in  1776.  Baskervill 
and  SewelP  treat  this  locution  under  the  head  of  "Lack 
of  logical  sequence  in  verbs,"  and  quote  faulty  sentences 
from  Defoe,  Macaulay,  De  Quincey,  Dean  Church,  and 
Irving.  They  say,  however,  that  these  phrases  used  to  be  in 
accord  with  the  older  idea  of  sentence  unity,  but  that  a  change 
has  been  setting  in  recently. 

Lounsbury  -  is  far  more  careful  in  his  statement.  He  says, 
"When  the  verb  of  the  predicate  is  in  the  past  tense,  there  has 
been  constantly  exhibited  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
language  to  resort  to  this  (past)  form  of  the  infinitive.  This 
practice  goes  back  to  the  fourteenth  century  (quoting  Chau- 
cer), .  .  .  Since  that  time  it  has  been  exceedingly  common, 
and  has  in  its  favor  the  sanction  of  usage  by  the  greatest  Eng- 
lish authors.  Of  late  the  language  seems  disposed  to  abandon 
its  employment ;  at  least  it  is  condemned  by  many  gramma- 
rians." "With  so  conservative  a  statement  as  this  before  their 
eyes  for  over  thirty  years,  are  the  rhetoric  professors  of  Amer- 
ica and  the  writers  of  schoolbooks  not  too  violent  in  their 
condemnation  of  this  construction? 

The  writer  has  noted  the  following  violations  of  this  rule : 

Malory   4       Scott 4 

King    James    Bible 1       Byron   1 

Shakespeare     2       Coleridge   1 

Marlowe     3       Lamb    5 

Bacon 1       Dr.   John   Brown 1 

Milton    2       Cooper    2 

Congreye    1       Macaulay  2 

Burnet    1       Poe 2 

Addison    2       Jowett    2 

Dr.  Johnson 2       J.  R.   Seeley 1 

Boswell     2       Holmes 1 

Franklin 2       Dean  Stanley   1 

Thomas  Warton   1       George  William  Curtis 1 

Fielding 2       Thackeray   1 

1  J?nf7?i".s7i  Grammar,  p.  319. 

-  Jlisiory  of  tlic  EngVixh  Language,  pp.  443,  446. 


290  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Bulwer   2  H.  W.  Mabie   2 

Kingsley    2  G.  W,  Cable   1 

I.  D  'Israeli   1  G.  K.  Chesterton 3 

Dickens    1  Brander  Matthews 1 

Froude    5 

Tlie  tables  show  about  40  authors,  and  many  more  might 
be  cited. 

By  running  carefully  over  the  list  above,  the  reader  can 
judge  whether  the  language  is  abandoning  this  construction 
or  some  writers  on  usage  have  made  an  unwarranted  attack 
upon  it.  Personally,  the  writer  does  not  prefer  the  misrelated 
infinitive,  or  whatever  else  we  may  call  it,  but  is  simply  record- 
ing its  status  in  the  literature. 

It  certainly  has  a  wide  vogue  in  polite  circles  and  among 
reputable  speakers;  e.g.,  "I  intended  to  have  written  before 
this  time"  would  certainly  pass  muster  in  many  a  gathering  of 
educated  men  not  addicted  to  verbal  criticism. 

Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  "At  the  same  time,  he  owned 
he  should  have  been  very  glad  to  have  seen  the  little  boy"; 
"Milton's  sentiments  and  ideas  were  so  wonderfully  sublime, 
that  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to  have  represented 
them  in  their  full  strength  and  beauty,  without  having  re- 
course to  these  foreign  assistances."  Dr.  Johnson  (Rasselas) 
says,  "I  am  not  a  princess,  but  an  unhappy  stranger  who 
intended  soon  to  have  left  this  country,  in  which  I  am  now  to 
be  imprisoned  forever."  Lamb  (Letters)  says,  "So  far  from 
being  ashamed  of  that  intimacy  which  was  betwixt  us,  it  is  my 
boast  that  I  was  able  for  so  many  years  to  have  preserved  it 
entire";  and  "Perhaps  he  wished  to  have  seoi  the  tomb  of 
Nelson."  James  Anthony  Froude  uses  this  infinitive  fre- 
quently; we  will  quote  two  passages:  "The  late  Sir  Eger- 
ton  Brydges — a  writer  whose  talents,  though  admitted,  were 
never  received  as  they  merited  to  have  heoi  by  the  world"; 
"It  would  have  been  enough  to  have  coloured  him  in  and  out 
alike  in  the  steady  hues  of  selfishness." 


THAN  AS  A  QUASIPHEPOSITION  291 

CXXIII 

THAN  AS  A  QUASI-PEEPOSITION 

Can  tJian  be  a  preposition?  One  of  the  best  recent  gram- 
marians of  England  ^  so  parses  it  in  some  places,  and  another  - 
seems  inclined  to  call  it  "a  quasi-preposition"  in  one  special 
locution,  than  wJiotn. 

Everybody  is  familiar  with  the  plirase  than  whom;  and  all 
who  have  read  the  literature  closely  have  seen  than  me  for 
than  I,  than  him  for  than  he,  etc.,  in  some  of  the  most  famous 
authors. 

Nesfield  treats  this  use  of  than  very  fully.  In  one  place  he 
has  the  locutions  than  whom  and  "other  than  wine,"  in  both 
of  which  he  parses  than  as  a  preposition.  In  another  place  he 
has,  "No  mightier  than  thyself  or  me,"  from  Shakespeare; 
^'than  them  both"  from  the  Bible  ;  "more  than  me",  "a  much 
greater  loser  than  me,"  from  Swift;  and  others  from  Pope, 
Prior,  Southey,  and  Caxton,  in  all  of  which  he  treats  than  as 
a  preposition.  In  1864,  Dean  Alford^  defended  these  same 
locutions,  and  said  that  than  governed  the  objective  case.  He 
cited  than  whom  from  Milton,  and  said  that  "than  who"  would 
be  intolerable.  Some  years  later,  Abbott,  the  famous  Shake- 
spearean grammarian,  wrote  a  grammar  for  schools,  in  which 
he  too  said  that  than  who  would  be  intolerably  harsh,  and  that 
hence  than  whom  was  evolved  for  the  sake  of  euphony.  In  this 
particular  phrase,  he  almost  calls  than  a  g/;rts/-preposition. 

George  Campbell^  in  1776  liad  discussed  these  cases  of 
than^\\\e  objective  instead  of  the  nominative.  He  treated 
than  as  a  conjunction,  but  said  that  Joseph  Priestley  had 
treated  it  as  a  preposition.  So  we  see  that  Nesfield  is  not  pro- 
posing anything  novel  but  simply  joining  forces  with  some  of 

■  Nesfield  :    English  Grammar  Past  and  Present,  pp.  94,  95. 

2  E.  A.  Abbott :   Hoic  to  Parse,  p.  210. 

^The  Queen's  English,  pflition  of  1866,  pp.  ir)2-1.54. 

*  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,  Book  II,  chap.  Ill,  section  II. 


292  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

the  old  grammarians.  While  we  might  regard  the  latter  as 
rather  out  of  date,  we  cannot  say  the  same  of  the  author  of 
English  Grammar  Past  and  Present. 

Quackenbos  and  Genung  treat  than  whom  as  an  anomalous 
expression  and  advise  the  student  to  avoid  it.  Baskervill 
and  Sewell/  while  advising  us  to  use  the  nominative  pro- 
noun in  the  eases  under  discussion  {e.g.,  "He  is  taller 
than  /")  say  that  the  other  locution  is  used  by  many 
good  writers.  They  quote  sentences  from  Shakespeare,  Pope, 
Southey,  and  Thackeray;  e.g.,  ''She  was  neither  better  bred 
nor  wiser  than  you  or  mc,"  from  Thackeray.  Baskervill  and 
Sewell  recognize  than  whom  as  far  better  English  than  any 
of  the  other  objectives  with  thaii.  It  is  universally  used,  they 
say,  but  add  that  no  special  reason  can  be  given.  (Abbott 
gives  "euphony,"  as  we  said  in  an  earlier  paragraph.)  Louns- 
bury,-  also,  puts  than  ivhom  on  a  higher  plane  than  the  others. 
He  says  that  it  has  been  both  common  and  classical  since  the 
latter  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  (The  earliest  cases  the 
writer  has  seen  were  in  Philip  Sidney,  Hooker,  and  Jeremy 
Taylor.)  Lounsbury  does  not  recognize  than  me,  etc.,  as  good 
English,  but  treats  them  as  ' '  irregular  and  careless. ' '  He  does 
not  parse  than  as  a  preposition,  but  regards  "whom"  as  a 
relic  coming  down  from  the  period  of  confusion  in  pronouns. 
The  Century  Dictionary  regards  these  phrases  as  "blunder- 
ingly" used,  but  says  that  than  whom  is  more  usual  than 
than  who.  (Is  the  latter  ever  used?)  The  New  English  Dic- 
tionary says,  "As  if  than  were  a  preposition.  .  .  .  Than  whom 
is  universally  accepted  instead  of  than  who.  With  the  personal 
pronouns  it  is  now  considered  incorrect."  This  dictionary 
quotes  examples  of  than  me,  than  him,  etc.,  from  the  Genevan 
Bible,  Goldsmith,  Scott,  and  Beddoes.  Carpenter,^  the  gram- 
marian, says,  "In  such  cases  there  has  always  been  a  tendency 

1  English  Grammar,  p.  280. 

^ Hixtorn  of  the.  E)i!/linh  Jjunyuayc,  p.  29S. 

^Principles  of  EiKjlish  (Jrummar,  \).  151,  note. 


THAN  AS  A   QVASIPKKPOSITION  203 

to  treat  'than'  as  a  preposition  followed  by  the  objective  ease 
and  to  say  'he  is  taller  than  me.'  Grammarians  and  rhetori- 
cians insist  that  this  construction  is  incorrect,  and  it  is  now 
largely  confined  to  colloquial  or  vulgar  English,  except  in  the 
almost  obsolete  expression  'than  w'hom,'  w^hicli  has  been  ac- 
cepted, in  spite  of  logic,  as  correct."  Professor  A.  S.  Hill 
cites  Shakespeare,  Milton,  Pope,  Byron,  Landor,  and  Thack- 
eray as  using  iJian  ivhom.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  quote  Scott, 
Thackeray,   and  James  Parton. 

Carpenter's  statements  need  careful  sifting.  First :  he 
should  say  that  most  grammarians  and  rhetoricians  regard  all 
these  locutions  except  than  U'Jiom  as  incorrect.  Secondly,  he  is 
hardly  warranted  in  calling  than  whom  almost  obsolete ;  it  is 
seen  and  heard  frequently  in  platform  English  and  is  some- 
times found  in  literature. 

Jespersen^  says,  "This  use  of  the  accusative  after  than  .  .  . 
is  now  so  universal  as  to  be  considered  the  normal  construction ; 
that  is,  to  the  general  feeling  than  is  a  preposition  as  w^ell  as 
a  conjunction."  The  writer's  course  of  reading  does  not  cor- 
roborate this  statement :  these  accusatives  (objectives)  were 
seen  only  occasionally  in  the  standard  authors. 

We  have  already  named  the  authors  cited  by  Baskervill  and 
by  Nesfield  as  using  than  me,  etc. ;  we  may  add  those  seen  in  a 
wide  course  of  reading:  Than  them  {=than  they)  is  used  by 
Adelaide  Procter ;  than  me,  occasionally  in  Shakespeare,  Swift, 
Prior,  Pope,  Dr.  Johnson,  Southey,  Thackeray,  Bulwer,  and 
Clough;  than  him  in  Shakespeare,  Johnson,  and  Kingsley ;  than 
her  in  Boswell  and  Prior.  It  has  been  said  in  earlier  para- 
graphs that  these  phrases  are  found  in  the  King  James  Bible, 
Caxton,  the  Genevan  Bible,  Goldsmith,  Scott,  Beddoes.  Cer- 
tainly there  must  be  some  better  way  to  explain  these  phrases 
than  to  call  them  "blunders",  "careless,"  etc.  Are  we  con- 
sistent if  we  quote,  say,  ten  or  fifteen  reputable  authors  to 
establish  a  locution  and  in  the  same  breath  quote  possibly  the 

^Progress  in  Laiiyuage,  p.  199. 


294  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

same  group  in  a  case  like  than  me  and  call  those  men  "care- 
less'', "blundering,"  etc.?  If  they  can  establish  one  locution, 
why  not  another  ? 

It  is  almost  inconceivable  to  the  writer  that  than  can  be  a 
preposition.  On  page  153  of  this  volume,  the  opinion  was 
expressed  that  it  would  be  better  to  regard  me  in  some  places 
as  an  irregular  nominative  than  to  treat  than  as  a  preposition. 

Why,  then,  can  we  not  conceive  of  than  as  a  preposition  ?  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  historically  an  adverbial  conjunction  and 
is  treated  as  such  by  Anglo-Saxon  scholars.  Secondly,  if  any 
of  the  sentences  involving  than  me,  than  him,  etc.,  were  writ- 
ten out  in  full,  the  I,  he,  etc.,  would  immediately  be  demanded, 
which  proves  that  the  pronouns  are  not  real  objectives. 
Thirdly,  if  than  were  a  preposition,  the  objective  pronoun 
would  be  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception.  In  the  next 
place,  than  is  simply  another  form  of  then;  the  sentence  "He 
is  taller  than  I"  means  "He  is  taller,  then  I  am  tall";  who 
would  ever  imagine  that  then  was  or  could  be  a  preposition? 
Again:  than  I  is  treated  by  all  the  grammarians  as  an  ellip- 
tical clause  adverbially  modifying  some  word  or  group  in  the 
other  clause.  If  "me"  happens  to  be  used  by  some  standard 
author,  shall  we  say  that  than  me  is  a  prepositional  adverb 
phrase?  This  is  an  iibsurdity.  It  is  better  to  treat  nic,  him, 
etc.,  as  old  nominatives  fossilized  in  a  few  phrases,  used 
irregularly,  and  gradually  dropping  out  of  the  literary  lan- 
guage. 

In  an  earlier  paragraph  of  this  section,  it  has  l)een  said 
that  Carpenter's  statement  tliat  than  ivhom  is  almost  obsolete 
was  too  sweeping.  The  same  tiling  may  be  said  of  Hill's  state- 
ment that  no  careful  author  would  write  than  him.  Passages 
involving  this  locution  have  already  been  cited  from  Swift, 
Pope,  Southey,  and  others  not  very  remote,  besides  the  Bible 
and  Shakespeare,  more  ancient  authorities. 

The  writer  is  not  defending  than  me,  etc.,  where  than  I,  etc., 
would  be  expected.    He  is  simply  showing  that  they  have  been 


THAN  AS  A   QUASI-PEEFOSITWN  295 

in  the  language  continuously  for  hundreds  of  years,  used  by 
the  best  authors,  and  is  combating  sweeping  statements  made 
by  writers  on  propriety,  statements  based  upon  utterly  inade- 
quate reading  of  the  literature.  This  volume  aims  to  prove 
that  the  English  language  has  always  been  liberal  in  its  ten- 
dencies and  free  in  its  syntax  and  that,  if  not  strait- jacketed 
by  purists  and  pedants,  it  would  give  us  wide  liberty  and  free 
choice  of  expression  in  many  casefs.  In  the  use  of  pronouns, 
especially,  English  has  always  been  liberal  and  would  con- 
tinue to  be  so  if  left  to  its.  own  devices. 

A  few  complete  passages  showing  the  use  of  t/i«>t  ^objective 
in  the  literature  may  be  added. 

Jeremy  Taylor^  says,  "and  all  this  for  man,  than  whom 
nothing  could  be  more  miserable,  thyself  only  excepted,  who 
becamest  so  by  undertaking  our  guilt  and  punishment." 
(Date  1650-51.)  Richard  Hooker-  says,  "Many  men  there 
are,  thati  whom  nothing  is  more  commendable  when  they  are 
singled."  (Date,  a»^e  1600.)  Sidney ^  says,  " So  grave  Coun- 
sellors, as  besides  many,  but  before  all,  that  Hospitall  of 
Fraunce:  than  whom,  (I  thinke)  that  Realme  never  brought 
forth  a  more  accomplished  judgement,  more  firmely  builded 
upon  vertue. "  (About  1581.)  These  passages  alone  prove 
that  Milton  did  not  originate  this  phrase,  though  the  fact  that 
he  used  it  in  Paradise  Lost  helped  no  little  in  giving  it  wide 
currency. 

That  than  me,  than  him,  etc.,  are  used  by  authors  not  known 
as  careless,  can  be  proved  by  a  few  quotations :  Boswell  *  says, 
"A  woman  does  not  complain  that  her  brother,  who  is  younger 
thaii  her,  gets  their  common  father's  estate."    Pope  says, 

Some  wit  you  have,  and  more  may  learn, 
From  Court,  tluui  Gay  or  me. 

1  Holy  Living. 
"Ecclesiastical  Polity. 
^  Defense  o)  Poesie. 
*  Life  of  Johnson. 


296  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Swift  says, 

And   though    by   Heaven's   severe   decree 
She  suffers  hourly  more  than  me. 

Clough  makes  Cain  say, 

O  Abel,  brother  mine, 
Where'er  thou  ;irt,  more  happy  far  than  me! 

Nesfield  quotes  a  sentence  from  Southey;  Baskervill  and 
Sewell  quote  from  Southey  and  Byron.  Passages  from  Thack- 
eray are  easily  available.  All  these  facts  show  that  these 
locutions  have  an  unbroken  history  in  the  literature  for  several 
centuries,  and  can  hardly  be  ascribed  to  carelessness.  The 
fact  that  they  are  exceptional,  however,  must  make  us. careful 
not  to  say  that  they  are  standard  English.  "It  will  be  safer 
for  the  student  to  follow  the  general  rule, ' '  says  an  excellent 
textbook  on  grammar.  ' '  Follow  the  generality  of  usage  of  the 
generality  of  authors"  would  be  safe  advice  to  students  of 
usage. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  added  that  than  I  is  more  literary 
and  far  more  common  in  standard  authors;  than  me  is  only 
occasional,  and  should  be  avoided  by  the  student. 

CXXIV 

THAT  AS  AN  ADVERB 

What  libertine  would  hesitate  to  promise  that  muchl     (Beecher.) 

That  has  considerable  vogue  as  an  adverb  in  popular  speech, 
and  occasionally  gets  into  literature.  The  sentence  quoted 
above  is  used  by  Baskervill  and  Sewell  ^  to  show  that  well- 
known  speakers  and  writers  use  it  occasionally. 

Dean  Alford-  calls  it  provincial  and  "quite  indefensible." 
Abbott  calls  it  provincial.  Carpenter  calls  it  "colloquial  or 
vulgar."     Baskervill  and  Sewell  say,  "very  common  as  an 

*  English  Grammar,  p.  180. 

=  The  Queen's  Enylish,  1S66,  p.  S2. 


THAT  AS  A  COOBDINATING  FELATIVE  297 

adverb  in  spoken  English  and  now  and  then  found  in  literary 
English."  Some  good  grammars  do  not  notice  the  adverbial 
that,  even  to  condemn  it.-  The  Standard  and  the  Century  say, 
"colloquial"  ;  but  the  latter  quotes  Bishop  Hacket  and  Brown- 
ing. Webster  says,  "Archaic  or  in  illiterate  use."  The  Ency- 
clopedic Dictionary  says,  "Yvdgar. "'  A.  S.  Hill  says,  "not 
properly  an  adverb. ' ' 

The  present  writer  has  seen  no  cases  of  the  adverbial  that 
in  a  wide  course  of  reading. 

It  would  seem  from  the  foregoing  statements  that  the  over- 
whelming consensus  of  scholars  is  opposed  to  this  use  of  that ; 
why  then  discuss  it  ?  The  answer  the  author  would  make  is 
that,  when  a  locution  has  considerable  vogue  in  colloquial 
English  of  classes  far  above  the  vulgar  and  is  also  found 
occasionally  in  good  authors,  it  is  worth  our  notice  as  students 
of  usage.  Of  one  thing,  moreover,  we  may  be  sure :  Beecher 
and  Browning  did  not  originate  this  locution  :  it  is  found  in 
embryo  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  period,  being  historically  an  ad- 
verbial genitive,    There  are  several  cases  of  it  in  Beoivulf. 

In  the  Valley  of  Virginia,  that  has  wide  vogue  in  "popular 
talk";  e.g.,  "I  am  that  sick  I  can  hardly  stand  up."  In 
Eastern  Virginia,  the  type  of  sentence  quoted  from  Beecher  is 
familiar  colloquially;  e.g.,  "I  am  not  that  foolish." 

cxxv 

THAT  AS  A  COORDINATING  RELATIVE 

Some  discarded  Whig,  tliat  is  sullen  and  savs  nothing  because  he  is 
out  of  place.     {Addison  in  the  Spectator.) 

The  thai  in  the  sentence  cjuoted  aliove  is  the  coordinating 
relative :  it  introduces  an  additional  fact  about  its  antecedent. 
The  majority  of  our  best  grammarians  condemn  it,  saying  that 
who  should  be  used  and  that  that  is  wrong.    Alexander  Bain  ^ 

'  Composition  Grammar,  pp.  67,  68. 


298  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

says,  that  .  .  .  lias  never  been  much  used  in  the  coordinating 
sense  for  who  or  which.  Thackeray  occasionally  affects  this 
usage."  Bain  takes  a  sentence  of  the  same  kind  from  Shake- 
speare and  one  from  Goldsmith  and  corrects  both  of  them, 
showing  us  how  he  has  improved  them.  As  to  Thackeray's 
"occasional"  use  of  this  that,  see  the  table  below,  in  which 
there  are  thirty-five  cases  from  Henry  Esmond  and  seven  from 
various  essays  of  Thackeray's.  Hundreds  could  be  found  in 
his  volumes.    "Where  is  the  affectation  ? 

Carpenter^  says,  "That  is  almost  always  a  restrictive  rela- 
tive, that  is,  it  introduces  a  group  of  words  which  limit  the 
meaning  of  its  antecedent,  much  as  an  adjective  would." 
Abbott-  says,  "Who  introduces  a  new  fact  about  the  ante- 
cedent ;  that  completes  the  antecedent.  This  is  the  general 
rule,  subject  to  a  few  exceptions  arising  from  the  desire  for 
euphony."  Baskervill  and  Sewell ^  say,  "That  is  in  most  cases 
restrictive,  the  coordinating  use  not  being  often  found  among 
careful  writers. ' '  Let  the  tables  refuje  this  statement.  Nesfield  ^ 
says,  "Who  and  which  are  the  only  Relatives  that  are  used 
in  the  sense  of  Continuation.  .  .  .  that  is  invariably  used 
in  a  Restrictive  sense.  ...  we  do  iiot  say,  'my  father,  that/  " 
etc.  How  incorrect  this  statement  is  can  be  seen  by  glancing 
over  the  list  of  more  than  100  authors  that  use  the  coordi- 
nating that  in  at  least  1100  passages.  Indeed,  we  can  see 
this  that  in  reputable  and  famous  authors  every  day.  Kit- 
tredge  and  Farley^  in  their  recent  textbook  say,  "That  is 
not  now  employed  as  a  descriptive  relative,  though  it  was  com- 
mon in  this  use  not  very  long  ago. ' '  This  is  the  most  incorrect 
statement  ever  made  by  Professor  Kittrcdge.  Whitney" 
takes  another  view:     ''Some  authorities  hold  that  ivJio  and 


'^  Principlen  of  Eiujlifih  (I  mm  in  or,  p.  00. 

^How  to  Parse,  p.  307,  note  1. 

^  Eii(/Ush  Grammar,  p.  290. 

^  EiihUkJi  Grammar  Vast  and  I're.srnt,  pii.  4.">,  44. 

^Advanced  EnglifiJi  Grammar,  p.  71,  uoto  1. 

«  Essentials  of  Eiiylish  Grammar,  p.  77. 


THAT  AS  A   COOBDINATING  FKLATIVK 


299 


tvhich  are  to  be  used  as  coordinating  or  simply  descriptive 
relatives,  but  that  as  limiting-  or  restrictive.  .  ,  .  But  the 
best  English  usage  by  no  means  recpires  such  a  distinction." 

Having  quoted  some  of  the  best  grammarians  of  our  day, 
let  us  turn  to  the  rhetorical  scholars.  Genung^  says,  "The 
relative  that  is  used  only  to  introdvice  subordinate  clauses 
necessary  to  define  or  restrict  or  complete  our  thought  of  the 
antecedent."  A.  S.  Hill-  is  nearer  right:  "Some  gram- 
marians would  reserve  that  for  clauses  which  restrict  the 
meaning  of  the  antecedent  .  .  .  but  the  warmest  advocates  of 
the  rule  admit  that  there  are  important  exceptions  to  it,  and 
that  it  finds  little  support  in  the  practice  of  reputable 
authors. ' ' 

Here  we  have  seven  authorities  against  this  use  of  that  and 
only  two  for  it.  Let  us  turn  to  the  literature  and  see  which 
group  has  based  its  statements  upon  these  supreme  authorities. 


Chester  Plays 1 

Interlude  of  Thersytes 1 

Earl  of  Surrey   2 

John  Heywood   1 

John  Bale    ?> 

Gorboduc    6 

John  SJcelton 3 

Shakespeare    84 

Titus  Andronicus 8 

Fletcher  and  Shakespeare 11 

King  James  Bible 55 

Massinger    56 

Marlowe     93 

John  Webster   9 

Bacon   35 

Prayer  Book   8 

Walter  Ealeigh 2 

John  Lyly   7 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher 2 

Spenser    59 


George   Chapman 5 

Sir  Thomas  Browne 13 

Richard  Baxter    1 

Jeremy  Taylor   7 

Herriek    4 

Milton    59 

Andrew  Marvell 5 

Cowley    1 

Samuel  Butler    3 

Dryden 20 

Pepys   1 

Pope 5 

Bishop  Burnet    14 

Prior 1 

Swift    4 

Addison   28 

Dr.  Johnson 2 

Goldsmith    2 

Gray   8 

John  Locke   1 


1  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  9;*. 

'^  liciiinninys  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  12G. 


300 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Franklin    3 

Cowper  2 

Gibbon    2 

Coleridge   3 

Lamb    39 

Seott     5 

Leigh  Hunt 1 

Keats   13 

Philip  Freneau  15 

John  Howard  Payne 1 

Io 
rving " 

Kirke  Paulding   1 

Wordsworth 42 

William  Collins 1 

Southey    1 


Jean  Ingelow 1 

A.  H.  Clough 10 

Henry  Taylor   1 

Hallam 3 

Edward  Everett   2 

Kingsley    2 

W.  W.  Skeat    1 

Swinburne    KJ 

Dr.   C.  Geikie 1 

Stedman 2 

William  Watson 2 

Phillips    Brooks 2 

Stevenson 12 

Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke 13 

Phoebe  Cary  3 


Thomas   Campbell    3       Stephen  Phillips 


Edward  Young 1 

F.  W.  Faber  1 

Jeffrey  1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   1 

Bryant   3G 

John  Keble  11 

Mrs.  E.  B.  Browning 11 

Bulwer   3 

George  Eliot  4 

Thackeray    42 

Hawthorne     7 

De  Quineey 9 

Christopher  North 6 

Poe  11 

D.  G.  Eossetti 6 

Longfellow    33 

Lowell    7 

Morris    22 

Prescott  6 

Cooper    13 

Holmes 6 

Dickens    3 

Here  are  115  authorities  covering  a  period  of  about  400 
years,  and  about  1100  passages.  The  locution  was  strong  all 
through  the  last  century. 


Adelaide  Procter   3 

William  Minto   2 

Sidney   Lanier    3 

Carlyle     1 

P.  H.  Hayne    12 

Tennyson    38 

Matthew   Arnold    1 

Browning 34 

G.  W.  Cable 16 

Fiske    1 

Bret  Harte   5 

T.  B.  Aldrich 1 

Brander  Matthews 1 

H.  W.  Mabie 3 

T.  N.  Page  1 

Andrew  Lang 6 

D.  G.  Mitchell   17 

G.  K.  Chesterton   1 

Stopford  Brooke    1 

George   William    Curtis 3 

Ernest  Ehys   2 


THAT  AS  A   rOOT?T)TXATI\n  BELATIVE  301 

The  recent  authors  that  use  the  coordinating  t'lwt  most  fre- 
quently are  Thackeray,  Bryant,  Morris,  Browning,  Tennyson, 
Cooper,  P.  II.  Ilayne,  Cable,  D.  G.  Mitchell,  Swinburne, 
and  Henry  van  Dyke.  It  was  very  strong  in  Spenser, 
Sliakespeare,  tlie  Bible,  ]\Iarlowe,  Bacon,  Milton,  Addison, 
Lam1),  Wordsworth.  When  has  it  ever  been  rare  in  litera- 
ture ? 

It  is  not  accidental  that  the  poets  show  snch  large  figures 
in  the  table.  Which  is  a  heavy  and  rather  ugly  word,  hard 
to  pronounce  rapidly  and  smoothlj^;  that  slides  off  the  tongue 
much  more  easily.  Let  us  illustrate  by  a  line  in  the  first  poem 
seen  in  the  newest  magazine  : 

And,   folk   whose   earth-stained   looks   I   hate, 

"Why  may  I  not  divine 
Your  Souls,  that  must  be  passionate, 

Shining  and  swift  as  mine? 

Here  is  a  case  from  the  throbbing  heart  of  the  living  lan- 
guage. The  poet  uses  that.  Apply  the  rules  of  the  textbooks 
and  the  melody  is  impaired;  the  poet's  instinct  rose  above  the 
canons  of  technical  grammar. 

The  rule  is  stricter  than  the  language  and  should  be  modi- 
fied. Some  day  the  language  may  make  who  and  ivhich  co- 
ordinating and  that  restricting;  but  it  has  not  yet  done  so,  as 
ivho  and  ichicli  are  verj'  frequently  restrictive  and  that  often 
coordinative,  as  seen  al)Ove. 

Milton  says,  in  Paradise  Lost, 


Here  pilgrims  roam,   that  stray 'd  so   far  to  seek 
In    Golgotha    him    dead   who   lives    in   Heaven. 


Satan  from  hence,  now  on  the  lower  stair, 
That  scal'd  by  steps  of  gold  to  Heaven-gate, 
Looks  down,  etc. 


302  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Pope  says, 

And   now   the   chapel's    silver   bell   you   hear, 
That  summons  you  to  all  the  pride  of  pray'r. 

Huge  theatres,  1]iat  now  unpeopled  woods, 
Now  drained  a  distant  country  of  her  floods. 

Addison  (Spectator)  says,  "This  .  .  .  will  never  be  decided 
"until  we  have  something  like  an  academy,  that  by  the  best 
authorities  and  rules  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  languages 
shall  settle  all  controversy  between  grammar  and  idiom," 
Swift  says,  "  is  a  manifest  breach  of  the  fundamental  law,  that 
makes  this  majority  of  opinions  the  voice  of  God."    And: 

Or  mere  chimeras  in  the  mind, 

Tliat  fly,  and  leave  no  marks  behind? 

Dryden  says, 

Tliose  are  Grecian  ghosts,  that  in  battle  were  slain. 

Thomas  Gray  {Ode  on  a  Distant  Prospect  of  Eton  College) 
says. 

And  Shame  that  skulks  behind. 

Or   Jealousy,  with  rankling  tooth, 
That  inly  gnaws  the  secret  heart. 

George  Eliot  {Adam  Bede)  says,  "a  little  smouldering  vague 
anxiety,  that  might  easily  die  out  again,  was  the  utmost  effect 
Dinah's  preaching  had  wrought  in  them  at  present."     Swin- 
burne, who  uses  the  coordinating  that  freiiuently,  says, 
The   last   was    Fear,    that    is    akin    to   Death. 

Sweet  love,  that  yet  art  living  man. 

God,   that  makes  time  and  ruins   it. 
Keats  says. 

Through    sunny   meadows,    tliat    outskirt   the   side 
Of  thine  enmossed  realms? 

Or  maiden's  sigh,  that  grief  itself  embalms. 

Tennyson  says. 

Smote  the  cliord  of  Self,  that,  trembling,  pass 'd  in  music  out  of  sight. 


THEE  AS  A   QUASI-NOMINATIVE  303 

De  Quineey  says,  "the  idea  of  secret  pertidy,  that  was  con- 
stantly moving  under-ground,  gave  an  interest  to  the  progress 
of  the  war,"  etc.;  also  "Apparently  this  young  generation, 
that  ought  to  have  been  so  good,  took  no  warning,"  etc. 

If  hundreds  or  thousands  of  sentences  from  reputable 
authors  can  refute  the  statements  of  grammarians  and  writers 
on  usage  we  can  say  that  Bain,  Abbott,  and  many  others  are 
in  serious  error  in  this  matter :  ivJw  and  which  have  not  driven 
"the  Jack  Sprat  that"  out  of  this  territory. 

The  writer  has  noticed  that  Jespersen,  the  famous  English 
scholar  of  Denmark,  uses  the  coordinating  that  fre(iuently,  so 
that  we  may  quote  him  on  the  affirmative, 


CXXVI 

THEE  AS  A  QUASI  NOMINATIVE 
I  "would  not  be  thee.      (Shakespeare.) 

On  pages  153 fiP.,  me  was  treated  as  a  quasi-nominative;  thee 
may  be  treated  in  the  same  manner.  T.  L.  K.  Oliphant^  in 
his  New  English  quotes  from  Shakespeare  the  sentence  which 
stands  at  the  head  of  this  section,  and  says,  "There  is  a  curious 
substitution  of  the  Accusative  for  the  Nominative  in  Pro- 
nouns." In  the  same  volume,-  however,  under  the  year  1762, 
speaking  of  Foote's  Orators,  he  says,  "The  strange  Nominative 
thee  appears;  thee  must  learn;  this  was  adopted  by  the 
Quakers."  This  Quaker  thee  has  been  explained  by  an  Amer- 
ican scholar  as  "an  old  dative-nominative." 

Matzner^  discusses  the  confusion  in  pronoun  forms  from 
Piers  Plowman,  through  Shakespeare  and  Dryden,  down  to 
Goldsmith.  Both  Matzner  and  Oliphant  quote  "Lord  y-wor- 
shipped  be  the,"  where  the  =^thou.    As  thee  (=as  thou)  occurs 

1  The  New  English,  II,  40. 

«P.  180. 

^English  Grammar  (Orece's  translation),  I,  294,  295. 


304  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

in  Prior,  Steele,  James  Thomson,  and  William  Cnllen  Bryant. 
Prior  says,  "wliieli  once  was  thee";  Thomson,  "The  nations 
not  so  blessed  as  thee." 

Dean  Alford^  and  others  have  explained  thee  in  as  thee  as 
objective  after  the  preposition  "as."  The  writer,  however, 
cannot  conceive  of  "as"  as  a  preposition  in  such  a  locution 
but  prefers  to  regard  thee  as  an  old  nominative.  (See  page  153, 
above,  for  this  writer's  view  of  than  me.) 

The  English  pronouns  took  a  long  time  to  settle  down. 
' '  Between  you  and  / ' '  is  so  common  in  Shakespeare  that  it  has 
been  called  a  Shakespearean  idiom,  and  is  explained  scien- 
tifically by  scholars  at  home  and  abroad.  Wycherley,  about 
1660,  says  "thee  and  /";  "ns  could  not  deny";  "it  was  me." 
In  the  Miracle  Plays  "us"  occurs  sometimes  for  ive.  The 
quotations  from  Prior  and  Steele  are  typical  of  the  language 
used  in  the  Augustan  era ;  Foote  and  Thomson  are  pretty 
recent.  In  extempore  discourse,  educated  men  not  infre- 
quently use  than  me  for  than  I  and  other  locutions  of  like 
character ;  in  print  they  would  correct  them.  Pronouns  are 
very  slippery  things,  and  we  cannot  look  at  them  too  closely 
in  the  literature. 

Steele  in  the  Spectator  says,  "When  two  such  as  thee  and 
I  meet,  with  affections  as  we  ought  to  have  towards  each  other, 
thou  shouldst  rejoice,"  etc.     Prior  says, 

May  some  kind  friend  the  piteous  object  see, 

And  equal  rites  perform  to  that  which  once  was  thee. 

The  most  recent  ease  of  as  thee  seen  in  this  course  of  reading 
is  in  The  Greek  Boi/  by  Bryant: 

Her  youtli  renewed  in  such  as  thee. 

1  The  Queen's  English,  ISCO.  p.  160. 


THOUSAND  FOE  A   OR  THE   THOUSAND  305 

■   CXXVII 

THINK  FOR 

The  author  has  heard  the  phrase  think  for  so  often  among 
intelligent  people  that  he  watched  it  in  the  literature.  Just 
as  expected,  it  turned  out  that  it  was  used  by  some  authors, 
not  only  rej^utable,  but  very  eminent.  For  instance,  William 
Morris  in  Sir  Peter  Ilarpdon's  End  says, 

well,  well,  i^erliaps 
They're  stronger  than  I  thinlc  for. 

Dickens  in  Pickwick  Papers  says,  "she  brightened  up  too, 
and  looked  rather  knowing,  as  if  matrimony  in  reality  were  not 
quite  so  far  ot¥  as  some  people  thought  for." 

Thackeray  and  Holmes  use  this  phrase  occasionally. 

CXXVIII 

THOUSAND  FOR   A  OE   THE  THOUSAND 

Thousand  is  used  without  the  article  pretty  often  by  the 
poets.-    It  can  be  found  in  the  following : 

Spenser    2  Pope   4 

Fletcher  and  Shakespeare 3  Prior     2 

Marlowe 2  Keats   1 

Shakespeare 1  Collins    2 

Milton    1  Browning 1 

Only  one  case  was  seen  in  prose — in  Carlyle — who  often 

uses  poetical  phraseology. 

Pope  says, 

When  tJwusand  worlds  are  round. 

Keats  says. 

And  in  the  midst,   'niong  thousand  heraldries, 
And  twilight  saints. 


306  STUniFS  IN  VSAGE 

A  more   familiar  passage  is  the   following  from  Milton's 
Hymn  on  the  Nativity: 

The  air,  such  pleasure  loath  to  lose, 

AVith  thousand  echoes  still  prolongs  each  heavenly  close. 

Metrical  considerations  no  doubt  led  all  the  poets  in  the  list 
to  omit  the  article. 


CXXIX 

THRIVED    Off    THROVE? 

What  is  the  past  tense  of  thrive?  The  writer  lias  often  hesi- 
tated which  to  say.  Let  us  see  v/hat  the  grammarians,  the 
lexicographers,  and  the  authors  do  in  the  matter. 

The  Standard  Dictionary throve,  rarely  thrived 

Worcester   throve 

Century throve,  sometimes  thrived 

Webster    throve  or  thrived 

Carpenter   throve,  thrived 

Baskervill  and  Sewell throve   {thrived) 

Alexander  Bain throve   (thrived) 

Whitney   throve  (thrived) 

Meiklejohn   throve   (thrived) 

Nesfield throve  (thrived) 

Kittredge  and  Farley throve,  thrived 

From  this  table  we  see  that  both  forms  are  recognized  but 
that  throve  is  the  preferred  form  in  the  grammars. 
Turning  to  the  authors,  we  have  the  following  record : 

1.     THBOVE 

Mrs.  Gaskell   1  Mrs.  H.  Ward 

Hallam 1  Swinburne    

Browning 1  .John   Fiske    

Kingsley    1  Tennyson   

Hawthorne     1  H.  W.   Mabie 

(teorge  Eliot   2  Stodman    


THEIVED  OR  THBOTE  307 

'£.     THRIVED    (PRETERITE) 

Massiuger    1       W.  ^^r.  Baskei\ ill 1 

Dryden  1       John   Fisko    1 

George  Eliot   1 

Louiisbury  in  his  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English^  says 
that  the  two  forms  are  used  indifferently  and  that  no  one  can 
predict  which  will  ultimately  prevail.  It  would  seem,  how- 
ever, that  this  statement  may  have  to  be  revised.  If  11 
authorities  are  unanimously  in  favor  of  throve  while  several 
of  them  give  little  or  no  recognition  to  thrived,  and  if  11  out  of 
14  authors  cited  from  the  nineteenth  century  use  throve, 
why  can  we  not  say  that  throve  is  decidedly  in  the  ascendant? 

The  w'ord  in  its  past  participle  and  past  tense  is  not  very 
common  in  literature.  Probably  the  authors  were  uncertain 
as  to  the  forms  and  used  other  verbs  such  as  succeeded,  pros- 
pered, etc.  The  forms  throve,  thriven,  and  thrived  are,  it 
would  seem,  rather  rare  in  conversation :  the  writer  confesses 
to  some  hesitancy  in  using  them. 

A  few  quotations  will  show  how  the  forms  are  used  by  the 
great  authors.     Tennyson  in  The  Palace  of  Art  says. 

And  so  she  ihrove  and  prosper 'd:  so  three  years 
She  prosper 'd. 

Browning  in  Childe  RoIa)id.  says, 

I  think  I  never  saw 
Such  starved,  ignoble  nature;  nothing  throve. 

Swinburne  in  Faiistine  says. 

But  this  time  Satan  throic,  no   doubt. 

The  verb  thrive  started  out  in  Middle  English  as  a  strong 
verb  and  is  now,  it  would  seem,  reverting  to  that  class. 

1  p.  145. 


308  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

cxxx 

THROUGHLY 

Throughly  is  used  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  is  familiar  to  every  close  reader  of  Shakespeare.  In  cheap 
editions  of  the  Bible,  it  is  often  changed  to  thoroughly.  "Wash 
me  throughly  from  my  sins,"  though  regularly  printed  in  the 
Prayer  Book  and  in  carefully  edited  Bibles,  is  often  changed 
by  public  readers  into  "Wash  me  thoroughly."  Students  in 
college  classes  have  to  be  taught  the  word  throughly  in  their 
Shakespeare  classes. 

The  old  adverb  throughly  is  used  by  Tillotson,  N.  Ward, 
and  Dryden,  one  of  the  dictionaries  tells  us.  The  writer  has 
seen  it  in  Prior  and  in  Tennyson.  Of  course  it  is  obsolete 
now  except  in  poetry. 

Prior  in  his  ballad  of  Down-Hall  says, 

For,  before  this  great  journey  was  throughly  concerted, 
Full  often  they  met,  and  as  often  they  parted. 

CXXXT 
TOMORROW  IS  SUNDAY 

Quackenbos  ^  condemns  the  use  of  is  with  the  word  to- 
morrow; he  says,  "As  well  say,  'Yesterday  is  Sunday.'  " 

Lounsbury-  defends  stoutly,  and  explains  is  as  a  survival 
of  the  present  tense  used  with  future  meaning,  so  common 
in  early  English  and  still  used  to  a  considerable  degree  in 
the  best  English.  Hill  permits  both  but  draws  a  fine 
distinction. 

Toinorroiv  is  and  tomorrow  will  he  are  both  used  in  polite 
society ;  the  writer  did  not  see  either  phrase  in  the  literature, 
hence  cannot  quote  passages.  Tomorrow  is  is  far  more  usual 
in  polite  colloquial  English. 

1  Practical  Rhetoric,  edition  of  1S96,  p.  245. 
''The  Standdnl  of  Usayc  in  Etujlinh,  ji.  Hi7. 


r^r  AND  OB  TEY  TO  309 

CXXXII 

TRY  AND  07?  TRY  TO 

Both  Quackenbos '  and  Genung  -  condemn  try  and;  e.g., 
"Try  and  do  better."  Baskervill  and  Sewell,^  "Occasionally 
,  .  .  found  .  ,  .  instead  of  the  better  authorized  try  to." 
They,  however,  quote  Thackeray,  Alexander  Bain,  and  Ruskin 
as  using-  try  and.    A.  S.  Hill  *  approves  of  try  and. 

Try  and  is  used  by  the  following: 

Baxter    1  Mrs.  Gaskell 1 

Lamb    4  Kingsley 1 

Matthew    Arnold 4  George  Eliot   5 

Thackeray    9  T.   L.   K.   Oliphant 1 

Froude   1  Sir  John  Lubbock 1 

Try  and  is  used  several  times  in  Otto  Jespersen's  books. 
How  can  the  locution  be  called  a  colloquialism,  with  such 
support  in  literature? 

Try  to  is  often  less  easy  of  utterance  than  try  and;  e.g., 
"We  ought  to  try  to  take  our  part."  Here  the  "t "-sounds 
are  hard  to  pronounce  and  not  pleasant  to  the  ear.  Try  to  is 
more. strictly  grammatical,  but  euphony  has  its  rights. 

Matthew  Arnold  {Essays  in  Criticism)  says,  "How  serious 
a  matter  it  is  to  try  and  resist,  I  had  ample  opportmiity  of 
experiencing,"  etc.,  and  "every  critic  should  try  a)id  j^ossess 
one  great  literature,  at  least,  besides  his  own."  Froude  says, 
"To  try  and  teach  people  how  to  live  without  giving  them 
examples  in  which  our  rules  are  illustrated,  is,"  etc.  George 
Eliot  says  {Silas  Marner)  "to  try  and  soften  his  father's 
anger, ' '  etc. ;  "  to  try  a nd  choose  your  lot, ' '  etc. 

1  Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  pp.  245,  246. 

"Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  1900,  p.  ."31. 

3  English  Grammar,  p.  330. 

*  Beginnings  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  p.  16. 


310  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXXXIII 
VOICE  AS  A  VEEB 

Eather  assume  tliy  Eight  in  Silence  inul  dc  faclo  then  v<ncc  it  with 
Claimes  and  Challenges.     {Lord  Bacon.) 

Voice  as  a  verb  in  the  meaning  of  assert,  utter  is  sometimes 
eojidemned  by  writers  on  usage.  Genung  ^  says,  "is  mucli 
used  nowadays,  but  the  usage  is  objectionable."  Louusbury- 
defends  it,  and  says  that  Shakespeare^  uses  it.  AVorcester 
recognizes  it.  The  Century  Dictionary  recognizes  it,  (juoting 
a  passage  from  the  North  American  Review.  Webster  recog- 
nizes it,  quoting  two  passages  from  Bacon,  one  of  them  being 
the  same  one  quoted  at  the  head  of  this  section.  The 
Encyclopedic  and  the  Standard  dictionaries  recognize  it. 

The  following  authors  use  the  word : 

Bacon   1       Price  Collier   1 

Stopf ord    Brooke 1        Brander    Matthews 2 

G.  K.  Chesterton 1       T.  N.  Page   1 

If  the  Century  Dictionary  can  quote  the  North  American 
Review,  the  authors  named  in  the  table  above  should  carry 
weight,  as  any  of  them  might  write  articles  that,  would  grace 
that  magazine. 

The  word  seems  to  have  lain  dormant  for  a  long  time  and 
reemerged  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

G.  K.  Chesterton  in  his  Life  of  Uroicning  says,  "what 
figures  Browning  has  selected  as  voicing  the  essential  and 
distinct  versions  of  the  case."  Price  Collier  in  his  England 
and  the  English  says,  "to  voice  the  fact  that  they  are  a 
Christian  nation."  L.  A.  Sherman  in  his  Analytics  o-f  Litera- 
ture says,  "She  is  made  to  serve  the  audience  as  a  sort  of 
proxy,  voicing  and  obeying  its  will." 

'  Outlinrs  (if  Iihrtoric,  p.  .".Ht 

"  The  t^taiuhird  of  Unaijc  in  Ktujlu^h,  \).  202. 

3  See  Coriolamut  II,  iii,  1.  222. 


WAS  FOR  SUBJUNCTIVE  WEBE  311 

The  locution  is  heard  not  infrequently  among  reputable 
speakers  and  has  some  vogue  in  polite  conversation ;  but  it  is 
true  that  it  is  a  "pet  word"  with  a  certain  class  of  speakers 
not  recognized  as  authorities.  As  said  already,  it  is  perfectly 
natural  for  a  noun  to  become  a  verb. 


CXXXIV 

WAS  FOE  SUBJUNCTIVE  WERE 

They  speak  as  if  the  scholar's  judgment  teas  one  thing,  and  the  gen- 
eral public's  judgment  another.     (Matthew  Arnold.) 

The  sentence  quoted  above  is  typical.  It  is  taken  from  a 
famous  essay  by  one  of  the  best  stylists  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. Let  us  see  what  the  greater  grammarians  say  about 
this  ivas  used  where  were  is  generally  expected.  Of  course 
"the  lesser  grammarians"  will  not  tolerate  it:  we  must  use 
were  in  certain  places. 

Matzner^  says  that  the  subjunctive  has  never  had  the 
monopoly  in  clauses  like  the  one  in  Arnold's  sentence.  He 
quotes  ivas  from  Sheridan,  Bolingbroke,  and  Bulwer  where 
were  would  be  more  strictly  elegant.  Henry  Bradley,^  speak- 
ing of  the  decline  of  the  subjunctive,  says,  "Perhaps  in  an- 
other generation  the  subjunctive  forms  will  have  ceased  to 
exist  except  in  the  single  instance  of  were,  which  serves  a 
useful  function,  although  we  manage  to  dispense  with  a  cor- 
responding form  in  other  verbs."  Professor  George  P.  Krapp^ 
■takes  the  same  view  as  Bradley.  After  borrowing  from  C. 
Alphonso  Smith  cases  of  was  for  ivere  taken  from  Thackeray, 
Matthew  Arnold,  and  Dean  Church,  he  says  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  subjunctive  can  keep  this  its  "last  stronghold" 
much  longer  against   the   encroachments  of  the  indicative. 

^English  Grammar  <Grecc's  translation),  II,  120. 
^The  Makino  of  English,  p.  53. 
3  Modern  Enylish,  p.  290. 


312 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Carpenter  ^  says,  ^ '  In  constructions  of  this  sort  .  .  o  the  indica- 
tive may  be  used ;  e.g.,  ' '  I  wish  it  was  in  my  power. ' '  Leon 
Kellner  ^  devotes  a  long  chapter  to  the  general  decline  of  the 
subjunctive  mood  in  English.  Under  the  head  of  was  as 
driving  out  were,  he  names  Bunyan,  Addison,  Sterne,  Maria 
Edgeworth,  Dickens,  Trollope,  and  R.  L,  Stevenson  as  using 
was. 

The  opinions  of  these  grammarians  must  carry  weight  with 
the  most  rigid  precisians.  If  not,  the  usage  of  the  authors 
already  cited  may  carry  some  conviction.  To  this  array  of 
authorities  this  writer  will  add  the  following  cases  which  he 
has  seen  in  the  literature : 


Eichard  Baxter    4 

Congreve    1 

Addison   4 

Defoe  1 

Steele  1 

Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu.  .  .  4 

Bishop  Burnet 1 

Dr.  Johnson   1 

Thomas  Warton   1 

John  Adams   1 

Sterne  1 

Fielding 2 

Jane  Austen 1 

Irving 2 

William  Hazlitt 3 

Burke 1 

Franklin 1 

Lamb    5 

Gladstone 1 

Beaconsfield    1 


Thackeray   14 

Landor  1 

Sidney  Lanier 1 

Matthew    Arnold 1 

J,  A.  .Froude 8 

Bulwer  1 

Kingsley    3 

Holmes 7 

Emerson     1 

John  Lubbock 1 

Brander  Matthews 6 

Lyman  Abbott  1 

D.  G.  Mitchell 4 

Sir  Henry  Taylor 3 

Lounsbury  1 

Justin  McCarthy 1 

Henry  van  Dyke 1 

G.  W.  Cable 1 

Phillips    Brooks 2 

Stevenson  2 


Five  of  the  greatest  grammarians  and  about  fifty  authors 
from  Baxter  to  the  present  show  that  was  in  the  unreal  con- 
dition and  in  the  clause  of  "wishing"  is  making  inroads  upon 

''■  PrinciiJlcs  of  Enylitih  (Irammar,  p  188. 
^Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax,  p.  244, 


WAS  FOE  SUBJUNCTIVE  WEBE  813 

the  territory  of  were.  Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  such  are 
the  facts. 

Thackeray  uses  this  form  frequently ;  jirobably  fifty 
cases  of  it  could  be  found  in  his  novels.  Among  living  writers 
of  repute,  Professor  Brander  jMatthews  j^robably  uses  icas  for 
were  most  frequently.  Of  course  were  is  the  prevailing  form 
in  standard  literature,  but  ivas  should  not  be  called  a  vul- 
garism. 

Such  facts  nuist  make  us  tolerant.  We  may  prefer  the 
subjunctive.  The  present  writer  may  say  that  personally  he 
enjoj's  it ;  he  likes  to  hear  a  group  of  elegant  subjunctives  fall 
from  the  lips  of  a  public  speaker.  But  the  facts  are  stubborn : 
the  subjunctive  has  been  giving  way  for  over  two  hundred 
years  in  its  "last  stronghold"  and  is  probably  doomed  to 
extinction.  Yet  the  writer  would  welcome  some  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  educated  classes  to  save  this  subjunctive  were: 
its  abandonment  would  be  a  distinct  loss  to  the  language. 

Addison  saj^s,  "Sir  Roger  told  me  .  .  .  that  the  country 
people  would  be  tossing  her  into  a  pond  and  trying  experi- 
ments with  her  every  day,  if  it  ivas  not  for  him  and  his  chap- 
lain"; "I  could  wish  .  .  .  that  there  was  such  a  kind  of  ever- 
lastiijg  drapery  to  be  made  use  of  by  all,"  etc.  Burke  says, 
"would  to  God  there  was  no  other  arbiter  to  decide  on  the 
vote,"  etc.  Jane  Austen  says,  "  'Haye  Park  might  do,'  said 
she,  'if  the  Gouldings  w^ould  quit  it,  or  the  great  house  at 
Stoke,  if  the  drawing-room  was  larger."  Fielding  makes  his 
hero  say,  "Was  I  but  possessed  of  thee,  one  only  suit  of  rags 
thy  whole  estate,  is  there  a  man  on  earth  whom  I  would  envy  ! ' ' 
Dr.  Johnson  says,  * '  He  passed  week  after  week  in  clambering 
the  mountains,  to  see  if  there  was  any  aperture  which  the 
bushes  might  conceal,"  etc.  Emerson  says,  "It  was  very  easy 
for  manufacturers  less  shrewd  than  those  of  Birmingham  and 
Manchester  to  see,  that  if  the  state  of  things  in  the  island  was 
altered,  if  the  slaves  had  wages,  the  slaves  would  be  clothed," 
etc     Stevenson  says,  ' '  Nor  was  this  all ;  for  suppose  I  was 


314  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

arrested  when  I  was  alone,  there  was  little  against  me;  but 
suppose  I  was  taken  in  company  with  the  reputed  murderer, 
my  case  would  begin  to  be  grave." 

As  to  the  earliest  appearance  of  this  was,  there  has  been 
some  discussion.  In  Matzner,  Kellner,  the  New  English  Dic- 
tionary, and  other  authorities,  there  is  no  case  cited  as  early 
as  the  four  from  Baxter  (about  1650)  recorded  in  the  writer's 
notes. 

The  present  writer  is  not  aware  of  any  ' '  trace  of  conscious- 
ness" in  using  were,  and  will  not  confess  to  any  affectation 
in  the  matter.    Krapp  is  certainly  mistaken.^ 


cxxxv 

WHAT  USED  OF  PERSONS 

Conjecturing  what,  or  who  he  could  be,  that,  in  these  rude  and  unfre- 
quented regions,  had  leisure  and  art  for  such  harmless  luxury.   (Johnson.) 

What  is  rarely  used  of  persons  in  modern  English  but  was 
so  used  frequently  in  Anglo-Saxon.  It  comes  on  down 
through  Caxton,  Malory,  the  Miracle  Plays,  and  Latimer,  and 
is  strong  in  Shakespeare.  It  would  not  be  treated  in  this 
volume  if  it  had  not  been  seen  in  still  more  recent  authors. 
One  passage — taken  from  Johnson — is  quoted  at  the  head  of 
this  section.  The  writer  has  seen  three  cases  of  this  what  in 
Congreve,  one  in  Massinger,  one  in  Ben  Jonson,  one  in  Lamb, 
one  in  Cooper,  and  tw^o  in  Tennyson. 

Abbott  -  gives  seven  passages  from  Shakespeare ;  the  writer 
has  seen  nine  others.  Typical  passages  are,  ''What's  he  that 
goes  tliere  ?"  ''What's  he  that  wishes  so  ?"  Abbott  -  suggests 
that,  in  Shakespeare's  day,  when  the  question  of  rank  was 
prominent,  what  was  natural.  This  might  explain  Johnson's 
use  of  what  and  who  in  the  sentence  at  the  head  of  this  section 

»  See  Modern  English,  p.  290. 

'^ Shalispcarian  Orammar,  p.  174, 


WHETHER  AS  INTEBSOGATIVE  P ARTICLE  315 

but  uould  not  explain  many  cases  in  other  periods  of  English. 
Congreve  in  The  Mourning  Bride  says, 

Garcia,  nhat 's  he,  who   Mith  contracted  brow 
Ami  sullen  port,  glooms  downward  with  his  eyes'? 

Again  : 

What's  he,  who   like  thyself   is  startled  here 
Ere  seen  ? 

Charles  Lamb  in  his  Farewell  to  Tobacco  says, 

Bacchus   we  know,   and   we   allow 
His  tipsy  rites.     But  ivhat  art  thou 
That  but  by  reflex  canst  show 
What  his  deity  can  do? 

In  Lancelot  and  Elaine,  1.  469,  Lancelot's  kith  and  kin,  not 
recognizing  him,  said, 

Lo! 

What  is  he? 

Of  course  this  use  of  ivhat  is  archaic,  and  is  recorded  only 
in  the  interests  of  lexicography. 


CXXXVl 

WHETHER  AS  INTERROGATIVE  PARTICLE 

The  writer  has  seen  a  few  late  survivals  of  whether  as  an 
interrogative  particle.  As  the  word  is  not  in  use  now  except 
as  a  conjunction,  either  standing  alone  or  followed  by  "or,"  it 
may  be  well  to  tell  briefly  some  of  its  obsolete  uses. 

As  an  interrogative  pronoun  (=  which  of  two?)  it  is  famil- 
iar in  Bible  English;  e.g.,  ''Whether  of  them  twain  did  the 
will  of  his  father?"  This  is  seen  in  Jeremy  Taylor,  Philip 
Sidney,  and  as  late  as  Swift's  Battle  of  the  Books  (1704). 
Again:  ivhethcr  was  frequently  used  by  Wyeliffe  as  an  inter- 
rogative particle  equivalent  to  Latin  nonne  and  by  Latimer 


316  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

as  an  interrogative  particle  expecting  the  answer  "no." 
Chaucer  uses  it  where  either  answer  might  be  expected.  We 
find  a  familiar  passage  in  the  Merchant  of  Venice,  when  Bas- 
sanio  says, 

Move   these   eyes? 

Or   ichether,  riding  on  the  balls  of  mine, 

Seem  they  in  motion?     (HI,  ii,  317.) 

The  editors  of  Shakespeare  either  pass  over  this  passage  or 
misunderstand  it.  The  quartos  sometimes  wrote  whither,  the 
particle  not  being  familiar  to  editors  and  printers,  Chaucer 
has  this  same  use  of  ivhether  along  with  other  uses.  This 
whether  is  found  in  a  letter  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  written  in 
1813.  Writing  to  a  grammarian  and  predicting  the  rise  of 
dialects  in  various  parts  of  the  English  world,  he  asks,  "But 
whether  will  these  adulterate  or  enrich  the  English  language  ? ' ' 
(We  have  found  Jefferson  a  little  late  in  holding  on  to  one  or 
two  other  old  locutions.    See  you  was,  page  331,  below.) 

A  very  similar  use  of  whether  is  seen  in  Boswell's  Johnson 
under  the  year  1783.  A  visitor  talking  with  Dr.  Johnson 
asked  him,  '^Whether  do  you  reckon  Derrick  or  Smart  the 
best  poet?"  These  are  the  most  recent  cases  of  the  old 
whether  that  the  author  has  seen  in  the  literature.  They  are 
thirty  years  apart  in  time,  but  the  men  that  used  them  were 
contemporaries. 

Wliile  all  these  uses  of  whether  are  extinct  in  standard  liter- 
ature, we  occasionally  hear  them  in  the  conversation  and 
informal  speech  of  educated  people  of  America.  For  instance, 
in  southern  Illinois  we  hear  educated  people  say,  '^ Whether 
of  these  two  books  do  you  like  best  ? ' '  This  is  a  sporadic 
survival  of  the  old  pronoun  used  in  the  Bible,  Sidney,  Jeremy 
Taylor,  Dean  Swift,  and  others. 

Jeremy  Taylor  uses  the  old  pronoun  ivhether= which  of 
two:  ''Whether  is  worse,  the  adultery  of  the  man  or  the 
woman?"  Swift  says,  "whether  is  the  nobler  being  of  tlie 
two?"     This  last  is  the  latest  example  of  the  pronoun  the 


WHO  FOF  WHOM  317 

writer  has  seen  in  the  literature,  Jefferson's  whether  being 
more  of  a  particle  than  pronoun. 

The  author  has  never  heard  any  of  these  old  whcthcrs  in 
the  South,  but  southern  Illinois  was  settled  largely  by  emigra- 
tion from  the  Southern  states. 


CXXXVTT 

WHO  F07?  WHOM 

Wlio  do  Tve  (-hooso  for  t'.io  county  member,  ctc.l     (Froiidt'.) 

In  1867,  Richard  Grant  White  ^  said  that  the  objective  ivhom 
was  "visibly  disappearing."  A  few  years  later  Bain,-  the 
eminent  Scotch  grammarian,  said,  "^yho  may  also  be  regarded 
as  a  modern  objective  form,  side  by  side  with  whom.  For 
many  good  writers  and  speakers  say,  'who  are  you  talking 
of?'  'who  does  the  garden  belong  to?'  "  Abbott"  says  that 
the  inflection  of  who  is  frequently  neglected  by  Shakespeare, 
and  quotes  six  passages  from  -liis  plays — mostly  different  from 
those  cited  in  the  table  below.  Baskervull  and  Sewell^  say, 
"In  spoken  English,  ivho  is  used  as  objective  instead  of 
whom."  George  P.  Krapp  ^  says,  "can  be  condemned  in 
practice  only  by  the  believer  in  the  rigid  theoretical  system 
of  grammar."  Carpenter®  says  that  M'hom  is  required  in 
literaiy  English  but  that  u'ho  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as 
incorrect  in  colloquial  English.  Professor  O.  F.  Emerson' 
says  that  who  is  used  for  whom-  frequently  in  Elizabethan 
English  and  cites  three  passages  from  Shakespeare.  Louns- 
bury*  defends  ivho  as  objective  and  says  that  ivJiom  in  inter- 

1  Words  and  Their  Uses,  p.  319. 

'  Higher  English  Grammar,  p.  141. 

'Shakespearian  eirammar,  p.  187. 

*  English  Grammar,  p.  73. 

s  Modern  English,  p.  301. 

"Principles  of  English  Grammar,  p.  SS,  note  2. 

''History  of  the  English  Language,  pp.  333,  334. 

8  History  of  the  English  Language,  p.  291. 


318  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

rogative  sentences  is  regarded  by  many  educated  men  as 
pedantic.  He  says  that  ivho  is  used  by  Peele,  Greene,  Ben 
Jonson,  Shakespeare,  and  others,  especially  in  conversation. 
Sweet  says,  "In  present  spoken  English  whom  may  be  said  to 
be  extinct  except  in  the  rare  construction  with  a  preposition 
before  it,  as  in  of  whom  are  you  spealiing?"  Jespersen  ^  says, 
"it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  find  hundreds  of  examples 
from  the  Modern  English  period."  The  author  of  this  volume 
may  say  that  he  has  seen  only  twenty-five  cases  in  thousands 
of  pages.  Jespersen  adds  that  in  some  of  the  dialects,  in- 
cluding the  Scotch,  whom  has  been  superseded  by  who. 

Professor  Kittredge-  is  much  stricter  than  some  of  the 
authorities  quoted:  he  says,  "Care  should  be  taken  not  to 
write  who  for  ivhom." 

The  writer  has  seen  the  objective  ivho  in  the  following : 

Shakespeare 17       Pepys   1 

Titus  Androiiicus 1       Kingsley     , 1 

Marlowe  2       Froude   1 

Defoe   6 

As  seen  in  the  table,  the  writer  has  recorded  seventeen 
cases  in  Shakespeare;  but  this  of  course  would  not  justify 
its  use  in  present  literary  English :  the  pronouns  were  utterly 
unsettled  in  the  Elizabethan  period. 

Few  of  the  textbooks  give  us  any  inkling  that  this  objective 
^vho  could  possibly  have  any  standing.  Our  children  are 
taught  to  regard  it  as  an  egregious  error  on  a  par  with  done 
for  did  and  the  double  negative.  If  our  schoolbooks  would 
only  grade  the  errors  and  not  put  them  all  on  a  dead  equality ! 
Errors  differ  in  grade:   some  are  venial;  others,  egregious. 

Defoe  uses  this  ivho  at  least  six  times  in  his  History  of  the 
Plague.  For  using  this  and  other  locutions  that  are  being 
schoolmastered  out  of  the  language,  Defoe  has  been  stigma- 

^  Proyrcss  in  Languui/r,  pp.  214,  21.">. 

^Kittrptlge  and  Farley's  Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  74. 


WHO  FOF  WHOM  319 

tized  as  ungrammatical.  Defoe  says,  "But  then  my  servant, 
u'ho  I  had  intended  to  take  down  with  me,  deceived  me,"  etc. ; 
"and  ivJw  to  intrust  my  affairs  with,"  Pepys  says,  "To 
churcli,  where  we  liad  common  prayer,  and  a  dull  sermon  by 
one  Mr.  Case,  wJw  yet  I  heard  sing  very  well."  Kingsley  in 
Hereivard  puts  this  wJw  into  the  mouth  of  a  character  that 
uses  very  correct  grammar:  "I  hang  thee,  poor  soul!  WJw 
did  I  ever  hang,  or  liurt  for  a  moment,  if  I  could  help  it?" 
This,  and  the  cases  from  Fronde  and  Kingsley,  are  tlie  latest 
found  in  this  course  of  reading. 

The  objective  ivJio  seems  to  be  ver\'  rare  in  the  literature  of 
the  last  two  centuries;  the  writer  cannot  produce  authority 
enough  to  justify  it.  In  conversation,  however,  it  has  con- 
siderable vogue,  as  we  have  found  from  several  eminent  Eng- 
lish scholars. 

Whom  for  who  occurs  occasionally  in  tlie  literature.  It  is 
seen  in  the  Bible  of  1611  several  times;  e.g.,  ''Whom  do 
men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am?";  "But  whom  say  ye 
that  I  am."  Benjamin  Franklin  and  Bret  Harte  use  it.  Shake- 
speare^ uses  it  in  Cymheline  and  other  plays.  A  closer  study 
of  u'hom  than  the  writer  has  made  would  probably  show  that 
the  confusion  in  pronouns,  so  widespread  in  the  Elizabethan 
period,  led  to  the  use  of  whom  for  who  pretty  frequently;  a 
few  more  cases  may  be  cited.  Franklin-  says,  "in  the  first 
place,  I  advise  you  to  apply  to  all  those  ivhom  you  know  will 
give  something."  Shakespeare  says,  "whom  in  constancy 
you  think  stands  so  safe";  "Young  Ferdinand  whom  they 
suppose  is  drowned." 

1  See  Abbott's  Shakespearian   Grammar,  §  410. 

2  Autobiography,  chap.  IX. 


320  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXXXVITT 

WHOSE  EEFERRING  TO  NEUTER  ANTECEDENTS 

The  Romance  family  of  languages,  ichose  common  ])arent-language 
is  Latin.     {Henry  Street.) 

In  some  quarters  there  is  still  a  strong  prejudice  against 
the  neuter  whose.  The  old  grammarians  and  some  of  the  later 
tell  us  that  tvhose  should  not  be  applied  to  things  without  life, 
but  that  of  which  is  the  proper  relative  construction.  The 
sentence  at  the  head  of  this  section  is  typical  of  the  contrary- 
use.  It  is  taken  from  a  book  by  one  of  the  most  eminent  stu- 
dents of  English. 

One  of  the  first  modern  scholars  to  question  this  locution 
was  George  P.  Marsh/  whose  name  is  familiar  to  all  that  love 
good  English.  In  1859  he  said,  ''At  present,  the  use  of  whose, 
the  possessive  of  who,  is  pretty  generally  confined  to  persons, 
or  things  personified,  and  we  should  scruple  to  say,  *I  passed 
a  house  whose  windows  were  oi:>en.'  This  is  a  modern,  and 
indeed  by  no  means  yet  fully  established  distinction."  The 
table  below  will  show  how  many  great  authors  had  been  using 
this  whose  and  were  using  it  when  Marsh  published  his  lec- 
tures; they  do  not  ''scruple." 

Nesfield  says,  "The  whose  of  Modern  English  is  generally 
limited  to  persons,  though  we  sometimes  find  it  applied  to 
things  as  an  equivalent  to  of  ivhich.  .  .  .  Our  language  has 
gained  nothing  but  inconvenience  by  restricting  the  use  of 
whose  to  persons,  and  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  older  practice 
of  using  whose  for  all  genders  will  be  some  day  resumed." 
Whether  the  first  statement  is  true  or  not  the  table  will  show. 
That  avoiding  whose  and  using  of  ivhich  is  very  inconvenient 
is  certainly  true ;  and  we  may  add,  cumbersome  and  pedantic. 
That  Nesfield 's  hope  has  been  realized  for  hundreds  of  years 
will  be  seen  from  a  glance  at  the  table  below. 

1  Yet  Ii(>  nsos  it  at  least  three  times  iu  liis  Lectures, 


WHOSE  FiEFE RUING  TO  NEUTER  ANTECEDENTS        321 

Carpenter  says,  "By  a  sort  of  personification,  ,  ,  .  whose 
sometimes  refers  to  things. ' '  How  often  the  writer  has  seen  it 
in  one  course  of  reading  the  table  will  show.  ' '  Sometimes  "  is  a 
decided  nnderstatement.  Fni^hermore,  if  Carpenter's  ex- 
planation is  right,  personification  is  certainly  running  mad 
in  our  literature. 

Henry  Sweet  ^  says,  ' '  The  possessive  whose  is  still  applied 
to  lifeless  things,  though  with  a  certain  hesitation,  and  only 
to  avoid  the  longer  of  which.  In  the  spoken  language  we 
avoid  such  constructions  as  *a  tree  whose  shade'  as  much  as 
possible."  Whether  the  reputable  authors  feel  Sweet's  hesita- 
tion, the  table  will  decide.  In  England  they  may  use  of  ivhich 
in  colloquial  speech,  but  the  writer  does  not  believe  this  is  the 
case  in  America.  In  his  books  Sweet  uses  whose  sometimes, 
though  he  may  have  done  so  "with  hesitation."  Goold  Brown 
says,  "I  dislike  the  construction  and  yet  sometimes  adopt  it 
for  want  of  another  as  good. ' ' 

A.  S.  Hill  in  his  Rhetoric-  says  that  good  authors  generally 
use  of  which,  although,  he  adds,  it  would  be  going  too  far  to 
say,  "as  some  grammarians  do,"  that  whose  should  never 
stand  for  an  inanimate  thing  not  personified.  He  then  gives 
some  sentences  in  which  whose  is  to  be  changed  to  of  ivhich. 
The  writer  has  found  warm  opposition  to  ivhosc  in  quarters 
where  Professor  Hill's  influence  as  a  teacher  is  still  potent. 
Genung  in  his  schoolbook  says  that  this  whose  should  be 
sparingly  used  and  only  when  smoothness  demands  it;  yet 
there  are  in  Genung 's  college  textbooks  at  least  forty-five 
cases  of  whose  used  of  inanimate  objects. 

The  foregoing  paragraphs  set  forth  pretty  fully  the  oppo- 
sition to  whose  among  the  best  authorities  of  our  day.  Let  us 
now  quote  some  of  its  defenders. 

Matzner^  puts  this  whose  on  an  equality  with  the  personal 

i  A'cif  English  Grammar,  Part  II,  p.  7S. 

^  Btfiinniugs  of  Rhetoric  and  Composition,  pp.  127,  12S. 

' Euf/lixh  Grammar  (Grece's  translati(in) ,  II,  pp.  olS,  .519. 


322  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

use,  but  says  that  it  is  modern.  The  examples  cited  below,  how- 
ever, go  back  as  far  as  Malory,  John  Bale,  Gorboduc,  the  Earl 
of  Surrey,  becoming  very  numerous  in  Shakespeare  and  Mar- 
lowe. Bain  ^  says  it  can  be  used  except  in  cases  where  am- 
biguity w^ould  arise.  Baskervill  and  Sewell  -  say,  "Gram- 
marians sometimes  object  to  the  statement  that  tvhose  is  the 
possessive  of  tvhicJi,  saying  that  the  phrase  of  ivhicJi  should 
always  be  used  instead ;  yet  a  search  in  literature  shows  that 
the  possessive  form  whose  is  quite  common  in  prose  as  well  as 
in  poetry."    They  cite  the  following  authors  as  using  it: 

Burke  -  Euskin 

Scott  Matthew  Arnold 

Macaulay  McMaster 

Kingsley  Beecher 

Thackeray 

Meiklejohn,^  the  Scotch  grammarian,  says,  ''Whose  may  be 
used  for  of  which."  Lounsbury  ■*  is  very  strong  in  his  defense 
of  whose.  He  says  that  it  is  etymologically  correct  and  is  sup- 
ported hy  the  usage  of  ' '  every  author  in  our  literature  who  is 
entitled  to  be  called  an  authority."  Whether  this  statement 
is  too  sweeping  or  not  can  be  detennined  from  the  table  below. 
Professor  John  Earle^  says,  "Whose  has  long  been  used  of 
persons  only,  but  there  is  now  a  disposition,  notably  among 
our  historians,  to  restore  its  pristine  right  of  referring  to 
things  also. ' '  Tlie  last  clause  is  excellent ;  but  our  table  will 
show  that  whose  has  never  been  c«nfined  to  persons.  Kittredge 
and  Farley''  recognize  both  tvhose  and  of  ichich.  They  add 
that  of  which  is  preferred  in  prose,  a  statement  which  the 
writer  believes  to  be  erroneous.  The  Century  Dictionary  says 
that  u'hose   is   still   correctly  used  of  a   neuter   antecedent. 

1  Composition  Grammar,  p.  71. 

^  EntjUsU  (J  ram  mar,  p.  7S 

^Thc  Enylish  Languayc,  p.  74. 

■*  The  fitandard  of  I'xage  in  Eiujlinh,  p.  109. 

^  Plilloioyjj  of  the  English  Tongue,  p.  457. 

■^Advanced  English  Grammar,  p.  G'J. 


WHOSE  HEFFBFING  TO  NEUTFE  ANTECEDENTS       323 

'Webster  recognizes  it,  quoting  a  sentence  from  Dryden.  The 
Encyclopedic  Dictionary  says,  "  'Wliich'  sometimes  has 
ivhose  as  its  genitive,"  and  quotes  a  passage  from  Milton  but 
from  no  recent  author.  Professor  0.  F.  Emerson'  says,  "The 
genitive  whose  became  restricted  to  personal  use,  although 
whose  as  a  neuter  genitive  is  found  in  literature,  especially 
poetry."  This  last  statement  is  certainly  true,  and  is  the  same 
statement  made  by  Genung  in  his  college  textbooks.  Emerson 's 
words  "found  in  literature"  will  seem  like  a  decided  under- 
statement when  compared  with  the  innnber  of  authors  cited 
in  this  section. 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant-  says  that  this  whose  is  found  in  the 
Bomaunt  of  the  Rose,  which  he  dates  about  a.d.  1520  and 
Skeat  "after  1500";  also  that  it  is  used  by  Tyndale  about 
1525.  As  it  is  found  in  Malory,  Bale,  and  other  early  authors, 
it  can  hardly  be  called  very  modern  in  origin. 

The  following  table  will  show  at  least  140  authors  that  use 
the  neuter  whose.  Many  more  could  be  found,  but  there  is  a 
limit  to  human  endurance;  writer  and  reader  alike  would 
become  exhausted.  The  genitive  ivhose  is  universal  in  poetry 
and  exceedingly  common  in  prose. 

Thomas  Malory    1      Sir  Thomas  Browne 10 

John  Bale   1      Samuel  Daniel    1 

Gorbodue   2      John   Donne    1 

Earl  of   Surrey    2      Milton    22 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher 4      Andrew  Marvell   1 

King  James  Bible 14      Bunyan    1 

Spenser    10      Jeremy  Taylor 10 

Shakespeare     57      Defoe   1 

George  Chapman .">      Dryden   17 

Marlowe 26      Addison    2 

Massinger    4      Pope     9 

Fletcher  and  Shakespeare 1      Prior 4 

John  "Webster 1      Fielding     4 

Ben  Jonson  1      Dr.  Johnson    3 

^Historij  of  the  Engliah  Language,  p.  338. 
zr/iP  A>ir  English,  I,  pp.  401,  4'J9. 


324 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Gibbon  15 

Bishop  Berkeley 1 

Cowper 1 

James  Thomson   2 

Geo.  Campbell    5 

Thomas  Gray   3 

William   Collins    4 

Dr.  H.  Blair 4 

Jane  Austen 2 

Franklin 1 

Philip   Freneau    10 

Audubon    1 

Burke 2 

Lamb    G 

Thomas  Campbell    1 

Byron 5 

Irving 3 

Coleridge    3 

Wordswort'a 31 

Shelley  20 

Keats   6 

Scott IG 

Southey    G 

Hallam 1 

A.  H.  Clough 4 

Wendell   Phillips 3 

Sir  William  Hamilton 6 

Longfellow    26 

Lowell    22 

Earl  of  Derby 2 

Boaconsfield    1 

Tennyson  9 

James  Montgomery 1 

J.  A.  Froude 4 

Emerson     18 

Sir  Francis  Palgrave 2 

Halleck    1 

Phillips  Brooks 5 

E.  A.  Freeman 2 

E.  P.  Whipple 1 

Thackeray   2 

Newman 2 


Bayard  Taylor 33 

Whittier 2 

Kingsley    2 

Sir  John  Lubbock 1 

Bulwer  7 

Milman    2 

Dean  Stanley   4 

William  Morris 6 

Holmes 4 

Sidney  Lanier 6 

Dean  Trench 8 

P.  H.  Hayne 30 

Isaac  D  'Israeli 2 

James  Bryce  8 

William  Minto    2 

Kittredge  and  Groenough 5 

Saintsbury     2 

Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott 1 

Lounsbury   13 

S.  Weir  Mitchell 1 

J.  F.  Genung 45 

McMaster 2 

T.  B.  Aldrich 1 

H.  W.  Mabie 28 

Henry  Drummond    1 

Phoebe  Cary 4 

Huxley  8 

Christina  Rossetti    1 

Sidney  Dobell 1 

Jean  Ingelow   1 

Mrs.  Gaskell   1 

Pollok 3 

Bryant   15 

Hawthorne 2 

Matthew  Arnold 11 

George  Eliot 1 

Dickens    15 

Macaulay 8 

De  Quincey  3 

Carlyle   7 

Motley    7 

Prescott 7 


WHOSE  ^EFEHItlNG  TO  XEUTFE  ANTECEDENTS        325 


Cooper    17 

Poe  1 65 

Kuskin    4 

Fitzedward  Hall  .  . 1 

D.   G.  Eossetti 11 

F.  W.  Faber 1 

Bagehot   1 

Mrs.  Browning   1 

Richard  CTrant  White 2 

Browning 8 

Horace   Greeley 1 

Mrs.  H.  B.  Stowe 1 

Thoreau    ' 1 

Kipling    2 

Henry  van  Dyke 4 

Edward  Dowden 2 

Stephen  Phillips 2 

Katharine   Lee   Bates 9 

George  P.  Marsh 3 


George  William  Curtis   14 

G.  W.  Cable  16 

Mrs.  H.  Ward 3 

Henry  Sweet 3 

Price  Collier 1 

W,  D.  Whitney 24 

Bret  Harte 16 

Stopford  Brooke  6 

D.  G.  Mitchell 4 

John  Burroughs  1 

Dr.  C.  Geikie 1 

T.  N.  Page 6 

John  Morley 1 

Leslie  Stephen   1 

Professor  John  Earle 8 

Stedman 3 

Swinburne   3 

Stevenson  6 

W.  W.  Skeat 1 


Here  are  more  than  140  authors,  in  about  1050  passages, 
all  the  way  down  for  more  than  400  years.  Are  there  any 
authors  left  to  name? 

The  results  of  this  study  of  the  neuter  ivhose  amazed  the 
present  writer :  he  is  fully  prepared  to  endorse  the  statement 
made  by  Lounsbury  that  this  ivJwse  is  used  by  every  author 
entitled  to  be  called  an  authority .- 

Let  us  draw  a  few  inferences  from  the  table.  (1)  The 
whose  under  discussion  is  used  by  the  rhetorical  scholars  of 
various  epochs,  such  as  Campbell,  Hugh  Blair,  and  J.  F. 
Genung.  (2)  It  is  used  freely  by  such  distinguished  writers 
as  Milton,  Johnson,  Matthew  Arnold,  Lowell,  Emerson,  and 
Longfellow.  (3)  Though  its  greatest  use  is  in  poetry,  where 
it  seems  to  be  universal,  it  is  used  frequently  in  prose  by  Sir 
Thomas  Browne,  Poe,  Dickens,  Cooper,  George  William  Cur- 
tis, Lounsbury,  Genung,  Mabie,  Cable,  W.  D.  Whitney,  and 
Hawthorne. 


1  Mostly  in  his  prose. 

^The  Standard  of  T's(if;r  in  Englif<h,  p.  109. 


826  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

A  casual  reading  of  the  table  will  show  that  the  neuter 
whose  made  enormous  gains  in  the  nineteenth  century :  the 
attacks  of  the  older  grammarians  and  the  "faint  praise"  of 
some  of  the  best  recent  grammarians  seemed  to  add  strength 
to  its  pinions. 

The  writer  has  not  seen  a  single  case  of  of  which  in  poetry ; 
indeed  he  cainiot  imagine  a  poet's  using  such  a  stilted  locution. 
This  very  stiffness  will  probably  doom  of  ivhich  to  extinction 
except  in  puristic   circles. 

Some  prose  writers  cited  as  using  whose  use  of  ivhich 
frequently.  Among  these  are  Macaulay,  H.  W.  Mabie,  Scott, 
and  Hawthorne.  Macaulay  generally  uses  of  which,  much 
to  the  injury  of  his  style. 

In  conclusion :  why  did  this  whose  incur  such  opposition  ? 
It  is  certainly  more  convenient,  more  concise,  more  eupho- 
nious, and  less  cumbersome  than  of  which.  It  is  historically 
neuter  as  well  as  masculine.  Again :  why  did  some  of  its 
enemies  or  its  lukewarm  friends  say  that  good  authors  avoid 
it  ?  We  may  answer  with  a  wise  saw  from  Goold  Brown,  the 
most  voluminous  of  the  old  grammarians.  After  criticizing 
one  of  his  predecessors  for  his  unqualified  condemnation  of  the 
whose  in  question, he  said,  ''Grammarians  would  perhaps  differ 
less  if  they  would  read  more."    That  is  gospel  wisdom. 

The  authors  that  avoid  whose  are  in  a  small  minority.  They 
are  probably  the  same  men  that  boycott  the  progressive  pas- 
sive verb  phrase  and  other  locutions  well  established  except  in 
some  small  localities. 

One  more  reference  to  the  list.  Among  those  using  this 
whose  we  find  such  guardians  of  good  English  as  Pope,  Dr. 
Jolmson,  Baskervill,  Minto,  Sweet,  Kittredge,  Lounsbury, 
and  Whitney,  all  of  whom  are  recognized  as  pure  though  not 
puristic  in  their  English. 

Though  it  might  seem  unnecessary  to  quote  a  few  passages 
where  thousands  are  available,  the  writer  will  show  how  some 
of  our  greatest  authors  use  the  ivhose  of  inanimate  objects. 


WHOSE  HEFEriBINCr  TO  NEUTEB  ANTECEDENTS       327 

The  ghost  in  Ilamht  says: 

I  could  a  tale  unfold  whose  lightost  word 
Would  harrow   up   thy  soul. 

In  the  Bible  {Dent.  8:9)  we  read,  "a  land  whose  stones 
are  iron,  and  out  of  whose  liills  thou  mayest  dig  brass."  Try 
of  which  in  this  passage.     Milton  says, 

Of  man 's  first  disobedience,  and  the  fruit 
Of  that  forbidden  Tree,  whose  mortal  taste 
Brought  death  into  the  world,  etc. 

Addison  in  the  Spectator  says,  ''Huygenius  carries  this 
thought  so  far,  that  he  does  not  think  it  impossible  there  may 
be  stars  wJwse  light  is  not  yet  traveled  down  to  us,"  etc. 
Pope   {Eloisc  to  Ahelarcl)   says, 

Eelentless  walls!    whose  darksome   sound  contains 
Eepentant  sighs,  and  voluntary  pains. 

Dryden  says,  "that  play  .  .  .  whose  plot  or  action  is,"  etc. 
De  Quineey  says,  "a  writer  who  had  looked  behind  the  cur- 
tain of  fate,  and  had  seen  the  forge  at  ivhose  fires  the  shafts 
of  Heaven  were  even  now  being  forged."  Matthew  Arnold 
in  his  essay  on  Gray  says,  "Gray,  a  born  poet,  fell  upon  an 
age  of  prose.  He  fell  upon  an  age  whose  task  was  such  as  to 
call  forth  in  general  men's  powers  of  understanding,  wit,"  etc. 
Newman  says,  "gaze  around  the  bay  of  Baite,  ivhose  rocks 
have  been  made  to  serve  as  the  foundations  and  the  walls  of 
palaces."  Macaulay  says,  "a  religion  whose  creed  they  do 
not  understand,  and  whose  precepts  they  habitually  disobey." 
Macaulay,  however,  as  already  said,  generally  uses  of  ivhich, 
much  to  the  injury  of  his  cadences  and  his  euphony. 


328  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

CXXXIX 

WOEDS    OF   RELATIONSHIP 

Words  of  relationship  liave  always  been  vague  in  English ; 
some  are  very  uncertain  at  present.  In  Anglo-Saxon,  for 
instance,  nefa  meant  nephew,  grandson,  and  stepson;  ncvene 
meant  niece  and  granddaughter;  maga  meant  son  or  relative. 
Chaucer  uses  nevew  for  grandson  in  the  Tlons  of  Fame. 
Shakespeare  uses  cousin  in  the  most  general  way,  sometimes 
for  nephew,  niece,  iincle,  hrother-in-law,  grandchild.  lie  also 
uses  nephew  with  the  meaning  of  coutin  and  grandson.  In  the 
Bible  nephews  is  used  for  grandchildren.  Nephew  started  out 
in  modern  English  with  the  meaning  of  grandchild  or  some 
more  remote  descendant :  it  is  so  used  by  Holinshed,  Jeremy 
Taylor,  and  Dr.  Johnson.  In  Shakespeare's  Troilus  and  Cres- 
S'ida,  Pandarus  calls  his  niece  cousi-n.  Dr.  Johnson  uses 
daughter-in-law  for  stepdaughter.  Jane  Austen  uses  hr other s- 
in-laiv  of  two  men  married  to  two  sisters,  and  this  still  ol)tains 
to  some  extent  among  the  upper  classes.  Fielding,  Macaulay, 
and  Thackeray  use  son-in-law  for  stepson,  and  we  still  hear 
this  in  polite  circles.  In  Pickwick,  Dickens  frequently  uses 
mother-in-law  for  step-mother.  This  vagueness  is  still  seen 
in  the  language  and  is  recognized  in  a  few  of  the  dictionaries. 

This  vagueness  is  not  confined  to  English :  the  Latin  nepos 
is  very  uncertain,  meaning  grandson,  nephew,  descendant.  In 
French,  neveu  in  the  plural  means  offspring,  posterity. 

In  America,  terms  of  relationship  vary  in  different  locali- 
ties. In  some  parts  of  the  country,  cousin-german  is  used  for 
first  cousin.  Second  cousins  in  the  South  are  third  cousins 
in  some  other  parts  of  the  United  States.  First  cousin  once 
removed  is  sometimes  heard  in  the  Southern  states,  in  Illi- 
nois, Maine,  and  New  Brunswick :  second  cousin  sounds  too 
distant  for  clannish  families.  Own  cousin  is  heard  in  some 
parts  of  the  United  States  for  first  cousin. 


TESTEENIGHT  '  329 

The  clanuislmess  in  Virginia  has  affected  these  terms  of 
relationship.  Sometimes  the  cliildren  of  a  second  marriage 
are  taught  to  ''cousin"  the  relatives  of  the  first  wife  or  hus- 
band ;  in  fact,  they  sometimes  use  all  the  terms  of  blood- 
relationship. 

Dr.  Johnson,  writing  of  his  step-daughter,  says:  "My 
daughter-in-law,  from  whom  I  expected  most,  and  whom  I  met 
with  sincere  benevolence,  has  lost,"  etc.  In  Troilus  and  Cres- 
sida,  Pandarus  says  to  his  niece,  "Good  morrow,  cousin 
Cressid. "  "  How  do  you,  cousin  ? "  "  Well,  cousin,  I  told  you 
a  thing  yesterday;  think  on't. "  In  Hamlet,  King  Claudius 
says  to  his  nephew  and  stepson,  "How  fares  our  cousin 
Hamlet  ?"  In  the  Bible  ^  clause,  "if  any  wddow  have  children 
or  nephews,"  the  word  nephews  has  not  the  meaning  now 
attached  to  it  in  the  language.  In  Pickwick,  chapter  28  is 
entitled  "Samuel  Weller  Makes  a  Pilgrimage  to  Dorking,  and 
Beholds  His  Mothcr-in-Law."  A  few  lines  below,  we  read, 
"It  occurred  to  him  so  strongly  that  he  ought  to  go  dowii 
to  see  his  father,  and  pay  his  duty  to  his  mother-in-law."  In 
both  places  Dickens  means  step-mother.  Confusion  of  the 
kind  cited  from  Dickens  is  not  uncommon  in  America. 


CXL 
YESTERNIGHT 

My   lord,    I    think    I    saw    him    yesternight.      {Hamlet. ) 

Is  the  word  yesternight  still  available  for  the  purposes  of 
poetry?  If  a  poet  cares  to  take  Shakespeare  alone  as  his 
model  he  can  find  certainly  twelve  passages  in  Cowden-Clarke's 
concordance ;  but  it  is  easy  to  bring  the  word  down  to  our  own 
period. 

The  Century  Dictionary  quotes  a  passage  from  James 
Howell   (died  1666),  famous  for  his  Letters;  also  one  from 

1/  Tim.  5,  4. 


330  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Walter  Scott  and  one  from  Tennyson's  Ode  to  Memory.  To 
these  the  writer  can  add  one  from  Latimer,  one  from  Charles 
Lamb,  one  from  Thomas  Campbell,  one  each  from  Tennyson's 
Second  Song  and  The  Princess,  one  from  Alice  Cary. 

The  poets  do  not  hesitate  to  use  yestereve,  yester  evening, 
and  other  compounds  of  yester.  Rossetti's  "But  where  are 
the  snows  of  yester-year"  is  familiar  to  all  readers  of  poetry. 
Shakespeare  has  lent  perpetual  dignity  to  yesternight.  We 
see  it  sporadically  in  the  verses  of  recent  poets,  and  believe 
they  have  good  authority  for  it.  Last  night  is  so  commonplace 
that  a  poet  might  naturally  recur  to  the  less  hackneyed  form 
under  discussion. 

A  few  extracts  will  show  how  this  word  is  used  by  the  best 
authors. 

Charles  Lamb  in  a  letter  written  in  1800  says,  "But  that 
worthy  man  and  excellent  poet,  George  Dyer,  made  me  a  visit 
yesternighi."    Tennyson  in  Second  Song  says, 

Tliy  tuwhits  are  lull'd,  I  wot, 
Thy  tuwhoos  of  yesternight. 

Alice  Cary  in  a  poem  entitled  Yesternirjht  says. 

Yesternight — liow   long  it   seems! 
Met   I  in   the  land   of   dreams 
One  that,  etc. 

Tennyson  s  yestcrmorn  is  familiar  to  all  readers  of  that  poet. 
The  writer  does  not  wash  to  "resurrect"  this  old  word  but 
is  simply  calling  attention  to  the  wide  use  of  yesternight  in 
literature. 

CXLI 
YOU  WAS 

The  present  writer  will  not  try  to  prove  that  you  ivas  is  good 
literary  English  in  the  twentieth  century.  He  will  simply 
show  that  it  has  not  been  out  of  vogue  as  long  as  some  might 


TOU  WAS  331 

imagine  and  that,  even  in  quite  recent  3'ears,  it  was  not  con- 
fined to  the  illiterate  classes. 

T.  L.  K.  Oliphant,^  citing  Bentley,  the  greatest  scholar  of 
Queen  Anne's  day,  as  using  you  was  in  1699,  says  that  this 
locution  was  then  just  coming  into  the  language.  Vanbrugh 
used  it  in  his  works  between  1697  and  1703.  Pope,  writing  to 
Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu  in  1718,  says,  "I  shall  look 
upon  you  as  so  many  years  younger  than  you  was."  George 
Campbell  (1719-1776)  says  that  it  Avas  pretty  common  in  col- 
loquial English  in  his  day.  Thomas  Jefferson,  who  was  thirty- 
three  years  old  when  Campbell  made  that  statement,  used  it 
sometimes  in  his  correspondence,  which  covered  the  period 
from  about  1800  to  1826.  This  would  indicate  that  you  was 
Avas  in  good  standing  in  America  after  the  opening  of  the  last 
century.  Charles  Lamb  uses  you  was  in  a  letter  to  William 
Hazlitt  in  1805  and  was  you?  in  a  letter  to  another  corre- 
spondent in  1808.  This  proves  that  the  locution  was  in  good 
repute  among  English  authors  in  the  early  part  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Tlie  author  remembers  a  person  of  the  very 
best  social  standing  born  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century 
who  used  you  was  regularly;  no  doubt  many  readers  of  this 
volume  can  do  the  same.  If  Lamb  could  use  it  about  1800  and 
Jefferson  about  1820.  it  must  have  had  considerable  vogue  in 
polite  colloquial  English  at  that  period. 

Quackenbos,-  while  putting  you  ivas  among  his  "everyday 
misusages,"  says,  ''You  was  is  a  solecism  almost  as  old  as  the 
fashion  of  addressing  a  person  in  high  station  in  the  plural 
number."  This  conflicts  with  Oliphant's  statement  that  it 
came  in  about  1700  and  stayed  a  hundred  years.  Fitzedward 
Hall  ■^  in  1873  says,  ' '  inelegant, ' '  but  ' '  used  to  be  sanctioned 
by  persons  of  the  highest  education."  He  cites  Cowpe^-, 
Bishop  Shipley,  Horace  Walpole,  and  others  as  having  used  it. 

"^The  Xftc  Enf/lish,  II.  p.  133. 
^Practical  Rhetoric,  1896,  pp.  246,  247. 
'  Modern  EtKjliih,  pp.  208,  209. 


332  STUDIES  IN  USAGE 

Miitzner/  quoting  passages  from  Sheridan,  Fielding,  Chat- 
ham, and  J.  Fenimore  Cooper,  says,  "The  form  ivas  for  the 
second  person  plural  has  become  naturalized  even  in  the  nobler 
sphere."  (sic.) 

You  was  is  under  a  cloud  now  but  may  emerge  again  as  a 
good  locution.  It  filled  a  useful  niche  in  the  language,  enabling 
one  to  address  another  without  any  danger  of  ambiguity.  At 
present  we  must  remember  Pope 's  advice : 

Nor  be  the  last  to  lay  the  old  aside. 

Logically  and  etymologically,  you  ivas  addressed  to  one  per- 
son is  just  as  good  as  "you  were";  both  are  mixed-breeds:  it 
is  custom  alone  that  has  put  down  one  and  exalted  the  other. 
' '  You  were ' '  was  once  a  neologism  and  an  intruder.  It  should 
be  added,  however,  that  you  was  has  not  been  common  in  the 
English  of  the  higher  classes  for  a  long  time ;  it  is  usually  a 
sign  of  inferior  station, 

Lounsbury  in  a  recent  number  of  a  popular  magazine  dis- 
cussed yoit  was.  He  said  that  it  was  used  by  the  best  writers 
and  in  polite  society  for  a  hundred  and  tifty  years.  He  cites 
the  following  persons,  authors,  and  correspondences: 

Dryden  Swift  Young 

Fielding  Beattie  "Walpole   Correspondence 

Richardson  Eiehard  Bentley  Byron 

Dugald  Stewart  Goldsmith  Lamb 

Pope  Cowper  Mrs.  Ann  Radeliffe 

Lady  Mary  Wortley  Atterbury  .           William   IV 

Montagu  Smollett 

A  recent  case  of  you  was  occurs  in  G.  W.  Cable's  Dr. 
Sevier.  Cable  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  Dr.  Sevier,  a  culti- 
vated Louisiana  physician  of  about  1850:  "There  must  have 
been  some  mistake  made  when  you  was  put  upon  the  earth." 

'■  Enolish  Urammar  (Greco's  translation),  II,  153. 


INDEX 


Abuildiug,  224. 

Aliovp.  used  as  adjective,  SO,  .'51,  ri2. 

Accept,  with  of,  27  ;  without  of,  27. 

Account,  settle  an,  255. 

Adjectives,  not  generally  compared, 
'"chief,"  "complete,"  "correct," 
"dead,"  "excellent,"  "extreme," 
"favorite,"  "perfect,"  "principal," 
"supreme,"  "unanimous,"  "unique," 
"universal,"  28,  29;  adverbs,  used 
as,  "above,"  "after,"  "almost," 
"down,"  "hither,"  "often,"  "outer," 
"seldom,"  "sometime,"  "then,"  30- 
38  ;  used  as  adverbs,  "mighty,"  159- 
162;  "pretty,"  217-219;  "right," 
249-251 ;  "such,"  275,  27G ; 
"plenty"  as  predicate,  196-198 ; 
"rather,"  as,  121  ;  verbals,  used  as, 
"cultivated,"  "cultured,"  "gifted," 
"moneyed,"  "talented,"  66,  67,  286- 
288  ;  singular  as  substantives,  262, 
263  ;  ending  in  "ed,"  286-288. 

Admit  of,  27. 

Adverl)s,  used  as  adjectives,  "above." 
"after,"  "almost,"  "down,"  "hither," 
"often,"  "outer,"  "seldom,"  "some- 
time," "then,"  30-38 ;  adjectives, 
used  as,  "mighty,"  159-162  ; 
"pretty,"  217-219 ;  "right,"  249- 
251  ;  "such,"  275,  276  ;  "that"  as, 
296,  297. 

After,  used  as  adjective,  32,  33  ;  as  ad- 
verb, 38,  39  ;  for  afterwards,  38,  39. 

Afternoon,  of  a,  185. 

Afterwards,  38,  39. 

Agreement  of  infinitive  with  tense  of 
predicate  verb,  289. 

Almost,  used  as  adjective,  30,  33. 

Also   (but)   with  not  only,  181-183. 

Anglicized  foreign  plurals,  109. 

Antecedent,  to  a  relative  clause,  pos- 
sessive case  as,  208-211  ;  rarely  im- 
plied in  possessive  adjective.  209  ; 
neuter,  of  whose,  320-327. 


Anybody  else,  87,  88. 

Anybody  else's,  87,  88. 

As  me,  153. 

As  thee  meaning  as  thou,  303. 

At  last,  40,  41,  42. 

At  length,  40,  41,  42. 

At  length  meaning  at  last,  40,  41,  42. 

Ate,  eat  for,  80,  81. 

Athletics,  singular  or  plural,  39.  -!0. 

Back-formations,  "beg"  from  "beg- 
gar," "resurrect"  from  "resurrec- 
tion," 243, 

Bandit,  109. 

Beat,  meaning  defeat,  42,  43. 

Beaus,  158. 

Beautifulest,  281. 

Beg,  73  ;  from  beggar,  243. 

Believe,  presume  for,  127. 

Better,  with  had,  117,  120;  with 
would,  117. 

Between,  43,  44;  between  each 
(every),  43,  44. 

Bill,  collect  a,  52  ;  settle  a,  255. 

Blue-eyed,  286. 

Boat,  catch  a,  50. 

Brave,  as  noun,  263. 

But,  44-46  ;  as  preposition,  44  ;  with 
nominative,.  44-46  ;  (also)  with  not 
only,  181-183. 

Calculated  with   the  infinitive,   47-49. 
Can,  49,  50  ;  as  independent  verb,  49, 

50  ;  found  in  poetry,  49,  50. 
Catch  a  post  (train,  boat),  50. 
Catched,  for  caught,  51. 
Caught,  catched  for,  51. 
Chief,  comparison  of,  28. 
Clause,  misplaced  relative,  102-165. 
Cognate  object,  247. 
Collect  a  bill,  52. 
Common  friend,  172  ;  mutual,  fur,  172- 

175. 


333 


334 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Comparative,  doublo,  74  ;  "useless  en- 
cumbrance," 280. 
Comparison  of  adjective,  28,  29. 
Commence  "-author,"    "-patriot,"   52  ; 
verbal  noun  after,  52  ;  followed  by 
infinitive,  52. 

Complete,  comparison  of,  28. 

Conceited.  286. 

Confidence,  implicit.  1.30-1.S2. 

Conjunction,  directly,  as  ;  immediately 
as;  instantly  as,  71,  72;  now, 
as,  72  ;  once,  as,  72,  18.3  ;  now,  as, 
183-185  ;  directly,  immediately,  in- 
stantly, once,  as,  184. 

Consider,  etymology  of,  59  ;  meaning 
regard,  58-60. 

Conspiracy,  conspire  associated  with, 
60. 

Conspire,  meaning  concur,  60,  61  ; 
meaning  agree,  60,  61. 

Constant,  61-63. 

Constantly,  61-63. 

Constant  (ly)  meaning  continual  (ly), 
61-63. 

Contemporary,  cotemporary  meaning, 
63,  64. 

Coordinating  relative,  that  as,  297- 
303. 

Corpse,  dead,  67,  68. 

Correct,  comparison  of,  28. 

Cotemporary,  meaning  contemporary, 
63,  64. 

Couple  of,  a,  64-66. 

Cousin,  328.  329. 

Cows,  kine  for,  145,  146. 

Criteria,  109. 

Cultivated,  as  adjective.,  67. 

Cultured,  as  adjective,  66,  67. 

Dangling  participle,  165-171. 

Dare  say,  I,  127. 

Demean,   meaning  debase  or  degrade 

oneself,  68,  69. 
Dependable,  242. 
Derivation,  47. 
Description,    meaning   kind,    sort,    69, 

70. 
Dead,    comparison    of,    28 ;    as    noun, 

262,  263. 
Dead  corpse,  67,  68. 
Defeat,  42,  43. 
Defeat,  beat  meaning,  42,  43. 


Difficultly,  70. 

Direct  object,  247. 

Directly,    as    a    conjunction,    71,    72, 

184. 
Dived,  dove,  for,  78. 
Donate,  73. 
Donation,  73. 
Double  negative,  75-77. 
Dove,  for  dived,  78. 
Down,  used  as  adjective,  80. 
Drank,  as  participle,  79. 
Drunk,  79. 

Each  (every)  with  between,  43,  44; 
of  two,  either  referring  to,   84,  85. 

Eat,  for  ate,  80,  81  ;  for  eaten,  81,  82. 

.  Eaten,  eat  for,  81,  82. 

-Ed  adjectives,  blue-eyed,  conceited, 
gifted,  good-natured,  moneyed,  re- 
nowned, talented,  286,  287. 

Editorial,  as  a  noun,  82.  83. 

Either,  meaning  each  of  two,  84,  85  ; 
meaning  more  than  two,  85,  86. 

Ellipses,  272. 

Else,  forms  in,  "anybody's  else,"  "no- 
body's else,"  "somebody  else," 
"whose  else,"  86-88. 

Else's,  forms  in,  "anybody  else's," 
"everybody  else's,"  "nobody  else's," 
"somebody  else's,"  "who  else's," 
86-88. 

Encounter,  89,  90. 

Ending  sentence  with  preposition,  213- 
217. 

Errata,  109. 

Ethics,  singular  or  plural,  201. 

Etymology,    59. 

Evening,  of  a,  185. 

Ever  so,  90-94. 

Every  with  between,  43,  44  ;  as  a  pro- 
houn,  94,  95. 

B]verybody  else's,  88. 

Evidence,  as  a  verb,  95,  96. 

E.\cellent,  comparison  of,  29. 

Execute,  meaning  put  to  death,  96- 
98. 

Execution,  97,  98. 

Expect,  suspect  better  than,  283. 

Explicit,  130,  132. 

Extreme,  comparison  of,  28. 

Fascinate,  73. 
Fair,  as  noun,  263. 


INDEX 


335 


Favorite,  comparison  of,  2S. 

Female,  as  a  noun,  99-102  ;  as  an  ad- 
jective, 102,  103  ;  not  a  perversion 
of  language,  10:5,  104. 

First  two,   104-10(5. 

Firstly,  107,  108. 

Foreign  plurals  anglicized,  bandit, 
criteria,  errata,  genera,  memoran- 
dums, radii,  rendezvouses,  serieses, 
109  ;  beans,  158  ;  mechanics,  157  ; 
formulas,  158  ;  phenomenons,  158  ; 
metaphysics,  159  ;  bandits,  158. 

Foremost,  74,  150. 

Formulas,  158. 

Friend,  mutual,  172-175. 

Genera,    109. 

Genitive,        s-,        inflectional        (old) 

phrasal,  207. 
Gerund,  misrelated.  1G5-171. 
Gifted,  as  adjective,  07,  287. 
Give,  donate  better  than,  73. 
Goodnaturcd,   2SG. 
Got,  109-112  ;  with  have,  121-123. 
Gotten,  109-112. 

Graduate,  as  an  active  ver'>,  113. 
Grandchildren,  328. 
Grateful,  meaning  pleasant,  114. 
Srow,  meaning  become,  115,  116. 
Guess  and  reckon,  231-235  ;  for  think, 

suppose,  233. 

Had  better,  117,  120. 

Had  lever,  119. 

Had  rather,  110-121. 

Hanging  participle,   160-171. 

Handsomest,  281. 

Hardly,  substitute  for  difficultly,  71. 

He  (him),  himself  for,  175. 

Heighth  (highth)  for  height,  124. 

Highth.  124. 

Himself  for  he  (him),  175. 

Hither,  used  as  adjective,  33,  34. 

I  (me),  myself  for,  175-177. 

I  am  mistaken,  125-127. 

"I  got  it"  for  ••!  have  it,"  123. 

I  take  it,  128,  129. 

I  presume,  127,  128. 

Ill,  sick  for,  250-261. 

Imagine,  suspect  meaning,  283,  284. 


Immediately,   as   conjunction,   71,   72, 

184. 
Immense,  129,  130. 
Immensely,  129,  130. 
Immensest,  281. 

In  our  (their,  your)  midst,  132-134. 
Implicit  confidence,  130-132. 
Individual  for  man,  134-136. 
Indirect  object,  247. 
Indispensable,  240. 
Infinitive,     with     calculated,     47-49  ; 

with  commence,  52  ;  split,  260-271  ; 

misrelated.  290  ;   tense  of,  288-290. 
Inflectional  genitive  (old),  207,  210. 
Ing  forms,  with  "s,  136,  137,  139-143  ; 

without  "s,  136-143. 
Instantly,  as  conjunction,  71,  72,  184. 
Interrogative     particle,     whether     as, 

315-317. 
Irregular  nominative,  me  as,  294. 
Irregular  superlatives,  "beautifulest," 

"exquisitest,"  "diligentest,"  "power- 

fulest,"  "patientest,"  "peaceablest," 

etc.,  281,  282. 

7s  as  old  plural,  54-58. 
Is  being  liuilt,  220. 
Is  building,  220. 
It  is  me,  154,  157. 
It  was  me,  156. 

Jeopard,  143,  144. 

Jeopardize,  143,  144. 

Journal,  editorial  for,  83,  144,  145. 

Kind,  09.  70. 

Kine  for  cows,  145,  146. 

Laughable,  240. 

Leave,  quit  meaning,  229-231. 

Lend,  loan  for,  150,  151. 

Length,  at,  40-42. 

Lengthy,  140,  147. 

Lesser,  74,  148-150. 

Living,  as  noun,  263. 

Loan,   as  a   verb,   150,   151  ;   meaning 

lend,  150,  151. 
Locutions,  29,   30,   31,   153,   210,   254, 

291. 
Long,  lengthy  for,  140,  147. 
Lever,  with  had,  119. 


336 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Malaprops,  47. 

Man,  individual  for,  134-13G. 

Matliematics,  152. 

Me.  as  quasi-nominative,  153-157 ; 
(I),  myself  for,  175-177;  as  irreg- 
ular nominative,  294. 

Mechanics,  157. 

Memorandum,  109,  157-159. 

Metaphysics,  159. 

Midst,   in  our    (their,  your),   132-134. 

Mighty,  as  adverb,  159-162  ;  in  epic 
poetry,  160  ;  vei-y,  preferred  to,  161. 

"Misapprehended"  participle,   170. 

Misplaced  relative  clause,  162-165. 

Misrelated  infinitive,  290. 

Misrelated  participle  (or  gerund), 
165-171. 

Mistaken,  125-127. 

Moneyed,  as  adjective,  67  ;  286. 

More  elder,  74. 

Morning,  of  a,  185-187. 

Most  unliindcst,  74. 

Mother-in-law,  328. 

"Muchly,"  107. 

Mutual  friend,  172-175  ;  for  common, 
172-175. 

My  meaning  of  me,  208. 

Myself  for  I  (me),  175-177. 

Negative,  double,  75-77. 

Nephew,  328. 

Neuter,  plural  subject,  53,  54  ;  ante- 
cedent of  whose,  320-327. 

Never  so,  90-94. 

Nobody  else,  87,  88. 

Nobody  else"s,  87,  88. 

Nominative,  with  but,  44-46. 

None,  singular  or  plural,  177-180. 

Not  only— but  (also),  181-183. 

Nouns,  adjectives  as,  "brave,"  "dead," 
"living,"  "rich,"  262,  263. 

Now,  as  conjunction,  72,  183-185 ; 
meaning   since,   184. 

Object,  passive  verb  cannot  take,  245  ; 

retained,  244-248. 
Of-genitive    with    inanimate    objects. 

202,  203,  206. 
Of-phrases,  206. 
Of,   verbs    with,    27 ;   with    n^ini'inber, 

242,  243. 
Of  a  morning,  185,  187. 


Of  which  with  neuter  antecedent,  320- 
322  ;  not  in  poetry,  326. 

Often,  used  as  adjective,  31,  34. 

"On  byldung,"  224. 

On  meaning  in,  224. 

Once,  as  conjunction,  72,  183,  184. 

Onliest,  74. 

Only,  not — but  (also),  181,  183;  posi- 
tion of,  187-193  ;  adverb,  187. 

Onto,  form  correct,  193  ;  analogy  with 
into,  193  ;  not  equivalent  to  on  to, 
194. 

Optics,  singular  or  plural,  201. 

Outer,  used  as  adjective,  30. 

Partial,  meaning  in  part,  195. 

Partially  for  partly,  194-196. 

Participle  "drank"  as,  "rang"  as,  79  ; 
dangling,  165-171  ;  hanging,  166 ; 
misrelated,  165-171  ;  "proven"  as, 
227-229. 

Particle,  splitting,  272-275  ;  whether, 
as  interrogative,  315-317. 

Partly,  partially  for,  194-196. 

Past  tense,  of  infinitive,  289 ;  with 
tomorrow,  'MS. 

"Passive  object,"  247. 

Passive  verb  phrase,  progressive,  219- 
227. 

Peddle,  73. 

Perfect,  comparison  of,  28. 

Periodical,  journal  for,  144,  145. 

"Persecuted"  participle,  170. 

Person,  individual  for,  134-136. 

Persons,  what  used  of,  314,  315. 

Phrasal  genitive,  207,  210. 

Phenomenons,  158. 

Physics,  singular  or  plural,  201. 

Pleasant,  grateful  meaning,  114. 

Plenty  as  predicate  adjective,  196-198. 

Pleonastic  pronoun,  19S,  199. 

Plural  subjects  with  singular  verb,  5.3- 
58  ;  foreign,  anglicized,  109. 

Politics,  singular  or  plural,  199-202. 

Possessive  case,  with  living  persons, 
202,  203,  206,  207  ;  with  inanimate 
objects,  204-206  ;  with  time  expres- 
sions, 203  ;  with  some  idioms,  203  ; 
as  antecedents  to  relative  pronouns, 
208-211. 

Post,  catch  a,  50. 

Pound,  as  plural,  212. 


INDEX 


337 


Predicate    adjective,    plenty    as,    19(5- 

lys. 

I'reposition   at  end   of  sentence,   2i:!- 

217  ;  than  as  a,  292. 
Present  tense  with  tomorrow,  308. 
Presume,  I,  meaning  I  dare  say,  127, 

128. 
Pretty,  as  adverb.  217-219. 
Principal,  comparison  of,  28. 
Progressive  passive  verb  phrase,  219- 

227. 
Pronoun,  every  as,  94,  9r>  ;  pleonastic, 

198,   199  ;   relative,  possessive  case 

as  antecedent  to,  208-211. 
Proved,  227-229. 
Proven,  as  a  participle,  227-229. 
I'ublication,  journal  for,  144,  145. 
Purists,  147. 

Quasi-nominative,  me  as,  15.3-ir)7 : 
thee  as,  303,  304. 

Quasi-preposition  "but,"  252  ;  "save," 
"saving,"  251,  252;  "than,"  291- 
296. 

Quit,  meaning  cease,  stop,  231  ;  mean- 
ing leave,  go  away  from,  229-231. 

Kadii,  109. 

Rang,  79. 

"Rathe,"  121. 

Rather,  with  had,  116-121  ;  with 
would,   116-121  ;  as  adjective,   121. 

Reckon,  and  guess,  231-235  ;  reckon 
for  think,  suppose,  232. 

Redundant  that,  235,  236. 

Regard,  58-60. 

Reliable,  239-242. 

Rely  upon,  239. 

Remember  of,  242,  243. 

Relationship,  words  of  brother-in-law, 
cousin,  daughter-in-law,  grandchil- 
dren, nephew,  stepson,  32S,  .329. 

Relative,  clause  misplaced,  162-165 ; 
pronoun,  possessive  case  as  ante- 
cedent to,  208-211 ;  that,  before  a 
pause,  236-239  ;  coordinating,  that 
as,  297-303. 

Rendezvouses,  109. 

Renowned,  286. 

Resurrect,  243,  244. 

Resurrection,  resurrect  formed  from, 
243. 


Retained    object,   244-248. 
Revive,  resurrect,  for,  244. 
Rich,  as  noun,  262. 
Right  as  adverb,  249-251. 

s-genitive,  207. 

s  possessive,  with  inanimate  objects, 
204-206. 

•s  with  ing  forms,  136,   137,  139-143. 

Save,  a  conjunction,  a  preposition,  a 
participle  (absolute),  251;  like  but, 
with  objective  case,  251  ;  quasi- 
preposition  with  nominative  case, 
252  ;  rarer  than  but  with  nomina- 
tive case,  252. 

Saving  with  nominative  case,  251,  252. 

Sat,  266. 

Scarcely,  substitute  for  difficultly,  71. 

Scour  meaning  search,  range  over, 
253,   254. 

Search,  scour  meaning,  253,  254. 

Secondly,  108. 

Seldom,  used  as  adjective,  31,  35. 

Self  forms,  176,  177. 

Serieses,  109. 

Set  or  sit.  264-266. 

Settle  an  account,  255. 

Sick  and  sickness,  255-261. 

Singulars  or  plurals,  "athletics,"  39  ; 
"mathematics,"  152  ;  "mechanics," 
157 ;  "memorandums,"  157-159  ; 
"metaphysics,"  159  ;  "none,"  177- 
180;  "politics,"  199-202;  "ethics," 
"physics,"  "optica,"  201  ;  "pound," 
212. 

Singular  adjective  as  substantive,  262, 
263. 

Singular  verb  with  plural  subject,  53- 
58. 

Sit  or  set,  264-266. 

Smaller,  lesser  for,  148-150. 

So,  with  ever  and  never,  90-94. 

Somebody  else,  86,  88. 

Somebody  else"s,  86,  88. 

Sometime,  used  as  adjective,  30,  31, 
35. 

Sort,  69,  70. 

Split  infinitive,  266-271. 

Splitting  particles,  272-275. 

Step-mother,  328. 

Stop,  quit,  meaning,  231. 


338 


STUDIES  IN  USAGE 


Sulijoct  and  verli,  agreenipnt  of,  i'>'A-'>S  ; 

uou-agreenient  of,  "jS-.'S. 
Subjunctive  were,  traf<  for,  .'ni-:514. 
^5uch,   as   adverb,  275,   270 ;   an   one, 

276-279. 
Sul)stantives,    singular    adjectives   as, 

2(!2,  203. 
Superlatives,  double,  74  ;  used  of  two, 

279,   280;   formed   irregularly,   281, 

282. 
Suppose,    I,    128 ;    suspect,    meaning. 

283.  284. 
Supreme,  comparison  of,  2S. 
Suspect    meaning    suppose,     imagine, 

283.  284. 

Sympathy  witli  (for  in)  as  to  persons, 

284,  285  ;  as  to  things,  285. 

Take  it,  I,  meaning  I  understand,  128. 
129. 

Talented,  as  adjective,  07,  280-288. 

Taste  of,  27. 

Taught,  teached  for,  51. 

"Teached,"  51. 

Tense,  of  infinitive,  288-290  ;  with  to- 
morrow, 308. 

Than  as  a  quasi-preposition,  291-290. 

Than  me,  153. 

Than  who,  291-296. 

Than  whom,  291-290. 

That,  redundant,  235,  236 ;  relative, 
before  a  pause,  236-239  ;  better  than 
who,  237  ;  in  popular  speech,  296  ; 
as  adverb,  296.  297 :  for  relative 
who,  297 ;  in  a  restrictive  clause, 
299  ;  as  coordinating  relative,  297- 
303. 

That's  me.  153. 

Thee  as  quasi-nominative,  303,  304. 

Then,  used  as  adjective,  30,  31,  36. 

Think  for,  305. 

Think,  suspect  meaning,  283,  284, 

Thirdly,  108. 

•Thusly,"  107. 

Thought  for,  305. 

Thousand,  with  a,  305,  306  ;  with  an, 

305,  ::oo. 

Thrived  or  throve,  300.  307. 
Thriven,   rare,    307 ;    succeeded,    pros- 
pered synonyms  for,  307. 
Throughly,  308. 


Throve,  or  thrived,  300,  307. 

Tomorrow,  with  present  tense,  308 ; 
with  past  tense,  308. 

Train,  catch  a,  50. 

Trustworthy,  less  euphonious  than  re- 
liable, 240,  241. 

Try,  with  and,  309  ;  with  to,  309. 

Two,  couple  of,  used  for,  64-06  ;  "two 
first,'"  104-106  ;  superlative,  used  of, 
279,  280. 


fnaccountable,  240. 

Unanimous,  comparison  of,  28. 

Under,  used  as  adjective,  37,  38. 

Undercurrent,  38. 

Underking,  38. 

Understan<l,  I,  128. 

I'ngrateful,  meauing  unpleasant,  114. 

Unique,  comparison  of.  28. 

Unity,  lack  of,  160. 

I'niversal.  comparison  of,  28. 

Unpleasant,  ungrateful,  meaning,  114. 

Verb  and  subject,  agreement  of,  53-58  ; 

non-agreemnt  of,  5.">-58. 
Verb  phrase,  progressive  passive,  219- 

227. 
Verbal  noun,  the,  following  commence, 

52. 
Verbs,   with  of,  27  ;   evidence   as,  95, 

90  ;  experience  as,  98,  99  ;  graduate 

as,  113  ;  loan  as,  150,  151  ;  voice  as, 

310,  311. 
Very  preferred  to  mighty,  liil,  102. 
Voice  as  a  verb,  310,  311. 


Was,  as  old  plural,  55-58  ;  for  subjunc- 
tive were,  311-314. 

Was  youV  331. 

Wax,  115. 

Were,  subjunctive,  was  for,  .".11-314. 

What  used  of  persons,  314,  315. 

Whether,  as  interrogative  particle. 
.■J15-317 ;  meaning  which  of  two, 
315. 

Which,  that  for,  298. 

Who  else's,  88. 

Who,  that  for,  297  ;  for  whom,  317- 
319. 


INDEX  339 

Whom,  who  for,  317-;U9.  Would  better,  117. 

Whose,  of  which  instead  of,  '■'•'J.i) ;  on  Would  rather,  116-121. 

equality    with    personal    use,    :J21 ; 

referring     to     neuter     antecedents,  Yestereve,  3oO. 

r>20-.S27  ;  used  in  poetry,  :'>'2C>.  Yestermorn,  ;>.'i(>. 

Whose  else.  88.  Yesternight,  o29,  :!30. 

Wonderfulest,  2S1.  Yester-year,  330. 

Words  of  relationship,  328,  321).  You  was,  331-333, 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


AUG  9     1^45 


SEP  8     1955 


26  '^^g 


%4 


w^ 


CE 


MAK  ilb  tB8S 


A»*^^  MAR  3 


U'A 


N0V3    »i'^^- 


OCT  2  2  '35^ 

1^  J  8  f  m 

i^r  30  '58 

0    i;i  SEP  13 1983 


BECD  LD-URl 

0CT2  61972 


SEPQ. 


I  V^ED 


8  ms 


MAIN  LOAN  OeSK 


1 I86S     p.  ^ 


Form  L-9-35))i-8,'28 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

AA    000  352  369    3 


1158  00882  6835 


